LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 


Class 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE 
CIVIL  WAR  PERIOD 


BY 

GEORGE  H.  PORTER,  Ph.B., 

Sometime  Fellow  in  American  History,  Columbia  University 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
I9II 


xv,* 

X  S     **     . 


PREFACE 

AN  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  following  pages  to  set 
forth  the  attitude  of  Ohio  on  the  great  political  questions 
of  the  civil  war  period.  Issues  purely  local  and  having 
nothing  to  do  with  the  war  have  been  omitted.  The  im 
portant  role  which  the  state  played  in  national  affairs  dur 
ing  this  period  through  the  prominence  of  her  political 
leaders  has  seemed  to  make  such  a  study  well  worth  while. 

Much  use  has  necessarily  been  made  of  the  newspapers. 
Owing  to  the  personality  of  many  of  their  editors,  they  re 
flected  the  opinion  of  the  various  political  factions  to  a 
marked  degree.  While  newspaper  accounts  are  not  always 
to  be  relied  upon,  they  have  been  carefully  sifted  and  forti 
fied  by  information  derived  from  other  sources. 

The  material  for  a  study  of  the  war  period  exists  in  a 
somewhat  fragmentary  condition.  Many  local  newspapers 
have  not  been  preserved,  while  a  number  of  public  reports 
and  other  documents  have  either  been  destroyed  or  are  not 
accessible  to  the  student.  There  is  great  need  of  a  Public 
Archives  Commission  to  undertake  the  work  of  preserving 
and  arranging  the  historical  material  of  the  state. 

During  the  progress  of  my  research,  I  have  been  greatly 
assisted  by  many  persons  who  have  manifested  an  interest 
in  the  subject.  Mr.  C.  B.  Galbreath,  of  the  Ohio  State 
Library,  has  rendered  invaluable  service  both  in  aiding  me 
to  secure  material  and  in  making  suggestions  on  the  treat 
ment  of  various  topics.  I  am  also  greatly  indebted  to  Mr. 
Daniel  J.  Ryan  for  permission  to  use  the  proof-sheets  of  his 
Civil  War  Literature  of  Ohio;  to  Col.  Webb  C.  Hayes  for 
141]  5 


6  PREFACE  [I42 

permission  to  examine  his  father's  papers;  to  Mr.  W.  H. 
Cathcart  for  the  use  of  material  in  the  library  of  the  West 
ern  Reserve  Historical  Society;  to  Mr.  A.  D.  Wilt  and  Mrs. 
W.  D.  Bickham,  of  Dayton,  for  assistance  in  obtaining 
material  and  for  permission  to  use  some  unpublished  letters ; 
to  Minnie  E.  Porter  for  a  critical  reading  of  the  manu 
script;  and  to  Mr.  C.  N.  Vallandigham,  of  Boston,  for 
copies  O'f  unpublished  letters  of  C.  L.  Vallandigham. 

The  study  was  undertaken  at  the  suggestion  of  Professor 
W.  A.  Dunning,  of  Columbia  University.  To  him  my 
thanks  are  due  for  many  suggestions  made  during  the 
progress  of  the  work  and  for  assistance  in  preparing  the 
manuscript  for  the  press. 

GEORGE  H.  PORTER. 
NEW  YORK  CITY,  APRIL  24,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 
OHIO  POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR 

PAGE 

Review  of  Political  Affairs  Prior  to  1859 12 

Wealth  and  population  of  the  state 12 

Influence  of  population  elements  on  politics 16 

State  elections,  1832-1859 16 

Legislation  on  the  negro,  1802-1855 19 

Personal  Liberty  laws 21 

Repeal  of  Personal  Liberty  laws 22 

Enactment  of  "  Visible  Admixture  law" 22 

Interpretation  of  the  word  "white"  by  supreme  court 22 

Relations  with  the  Border  States  During  1859-1860 23 

The  Oberlin- Wellington  rescue  case 23 

Campaign  of  1859 25 

Analysis  of  the  legislature  elected  in  1859 26 

The  John  Brown  raid 27 

Election  of  a  U.  S.  Senator  in  1860 30 

Visit  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  legislatures 31 

Attempts  to  reenact  Personal  Liberty  laws,  1860 32 

Attempts  of  the  Democrats  to  restrict  negro  immigration  ...  34 

Legislature  on  the  John. Brown  raid 35 

Extradition  of  Brown  and  Merriam 38 

The  Lago  case  40 

The  Kennedy  case 41 

Party  Conventions  and  the  Campaign  of  1860 42 

Democratic  convention,  January  5,  1860 42 

Republican  convention,  March  ist 43 

Republican  nominating  convention,  June  I3th 44 

Democratic  convention,  July  4th 44 

Breckinridge  revolt 45 

Constitutional  Unionists 46 

Campaign  of  1860 48 

Election .  48 

143]  7 


23302? 


8  CONTENTS  [I44 

PAGE 

Attitude  of  Ohio  on  Secession  and  Compromise    •   •    • 49 

Opinions  in  the  North  on  secession  .    .       49 

Opinions  in  Ohio  on  secession 50 

Democratic  convention,  January  23,  1860 52 

Legislature  on  questions  of  compromise 55 

Resolutions  of  January  i2th 58 

Question  of  unconstitutional  legislation 61 

The  extradition  question  in  the  legislature 62 

Selection  of  delegates  to  the  Peace  Conference 64 

Question  of  calling  a  national  convention 68 

Attempt  at  ratifying  proposals  of  Peace  Conference 68 

The  extradition  question  again 69 

Request  for  Ohio  to  guarantee  U.  S.  bonds 70 

Election  of  Sherman  to  U.  S.  Senate 70 

Growth  of  the  spirit  of  compromise  in  the  state 71 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  :  ORGANIZATION  AND  WORK 

Genesis  of  the  Union  Party  .                                      73 

Enthusiasm  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war 73 

Change  of  sentiment   .                                74 

Abandonment  of  party  feeling                 74 

The  million-dollar  appropriation. 75 

Protection  of  southern  border  of  the  state 76 

Other  acts  of  the  legislature  for  support  of  the  war 77 

Difficulties  in  the  way  of  union  movement 78 

Call  for  Democratic  state  convention 79 

Plans  for  union  movement           80 

Resolution  of  Republican  state  central  committee 81 

Democratic  sentiment  on  union  movement 81 

Attitude  of  the  Abolition  element          .    .               ........  82 

Democratic  state  convention,  August  7,  1861 83 

Jewett's  letter  of  acceptance 84 

Call  for  Union  mass  convention  -    .           86 

Question  of  platform  and  candidate       87 

The  Union  convention,  September  5,  1861 88 

Campaign  of  1861             90 

Election                                                   .    .    .    • 90 

Work  of  the  First  Union  Legislature 91 

Governor  Tod's  inaugural 92 

Lack  of  harmony  among  the  Union  members 93 

Retrenchment 95 


145]                                       CONTENTS  g 

PAGE 

Reapportionment  of  state  for  congressional  purposes 96 

Question  of  immigration  of  the  negro .  .  96 

Attempt  to  elect  a  U.  S.  Senator 98 

The  Political  Campaign  of  1862 100 

Desire  to  revive  the  old  party  ...  ....  100 

Union  state  convention,  August  2ist  102 

The  Democratic  ticket 102 

Issues  in  the  campaign 104 

Election  .  .  108 

Effect  of  the  defeat  on  the  Union  party .  .  108 

Efforts  to  Strengthen  the  Party  after  the  Defeat  of  1862 109 

Meeting  of  the  legislature,  1863 no 

Message  of  Governor  Tod.  .  no 

The  Senatorial  question in 

No  legislative  expression  on  Emancipation  Proclamation  ....  112 

Soldiers'  voting  law 113 

Resignation  of  state  auditor  Taylor 113 

Low  tide  of  the  Union  party.  115 

Resolutions  of  Ohio  regiments 115 

Organization  of  Union  Leagues 116 

Question  of  a  Union  candidate  in  1863  .  117 

The  Brough  boom  .  ...  119 

Union  state  convention 120 

The  Union  Party  in  the  Campaign  of  1864 121 

Result  of  the  election  of  1863  ...  122 

Rescinding  of  ratification  of  Corwin  Amendment 122 

Action  of  the  legislature  on  a  Presidential  candidate  ....  .  122 

Ohio  in  the  Baltimore  convention ...  125 

Campaign  of  1864.  .  125 

Union  party  continued  after  the  war 126 

CHAPTER  III 
VALLANDIGHAM  AND  THE  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

The  Peace  Democracy  During  the  Early  Part  of  the  War 128 

The  Peace  Democrats  defined 128 

Vallandigham  as  leader  in  the  West •.  128 

Other  leaders  in  Ohio.               .    .                           133 

Attitude  of  Democratic  leaders  toward  the  Union  movement      .  134 

Revival  of  the  party  after  the  election  of  1861 136 

Ohio  Democrats  in  Congrees,  1861-1862  . 137 

Effect  of  the  Democratic  Address  on  Ohio  politics      138 

Democratic  state  convention,  July  4,  1862 139 

Campaign  of  1862 142 


10  CONTENTS  [I46 


PAGE 


Effect  of  the  Election  of  1862  on  the  Peace  Democracy 144 

Jollification  meetings 144 

Ohio  Democrats  in  Congress,  1862-1863  145 

Vallandigham's  speech,  January  14,  1863 147 

Disposition  of  the  Peace  Democrats  in  Ohio 148 

Olds  escorted  to  Columbus  .  .  • 149 

Jackson  Day  banquet,  January  8,  1863 149 

Attitude  of  the  Democrats  in  the  legislature 150 

Dresel  resolutions  on  military  arrests 151 

Modification  of  kidnapping  act  of  1835 153 

Attempt  to  expel  Dresel 154 

Democratic  agitation  against  negro  immigration.  .  .  ...  155 

Democratic  meetings  during  spring  of  1863 155 

Mobbing  of  Crisis  office 156 

Arrest  of  Governor  Tod.  157 

Arrest  and  Trial  of  Vallandigham ....  159 

Assignment  of  General  Burnside  to  Department  of  Ohio  ....  159 

General  Order  Number  38 160 

The  Mount  Vernon  meeting 161 

Arrest  of  Vallandigham 162 

Trial  before  a  military  commission 162 

Application  for  writ  of  habeas  corpus 162 

Finding  of  the  commission 165 

General  opinion  of  the  arrest 165 

The  Campaign  of  1863  ...  167 

Effect  of  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham. 167 

Protest  of  the  New  York  Democrats 168 

The  Democratic  state  convention,  June  nth  .  - 170 

The  state-sovereignty  faction 173 

Lincoln  and  the  Ohio  committee 174 

Arrival  of  Vallandigham  in  Canada 177 

The  campaign 178 

Convention  of  War  Democrats 181 

Election 183 

Democratic  press  on  causes  of  defeat •  184 

Effect  of  the  defeat  on  Vallandigham 185 

Violence  during  the  year  1863 185 

Activity  ot  the  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle 187 

The  dime  fund 188 

New  church  movement 189 

The  Democracy  in  the  Campaign  of  1864 190 

Condition  of  the  Democracy  at  the  beginning  of  1864 190 

Attacks  on  Democratic  newspaper  offices 191 


147]                                      CONTENTS  H 

PAdE 

Democratic  state  convention  of  1864. 192 

Return  of  Vallandigham 194 

Campaign  of  1864.    -               196 

Convention  of  state-rights  Democrats  ....       197 

The  Democracy  during  reconstruction 198 

Conclusion 198 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  QUESTION  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO 

Politics  of  the  Year  1865 200 

Sentiment  on  negro  suffrage  at  the  opening  of  the  war 201 

Ratification  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 202 

Repeal  of  "Visible  Admixture  law" ...       .  202 

Support  of  President  Johnson 203 

Attitude  of  the  Democracy  toward  Johnson 203 

Call  for  Union  state  convention 204 

Question  of  suitable  Union  candidate  for  governor 205 

Union  state  convention,  June  2ist 206 

Nomination  of  General  Cox      .    . .  207 

Compromise  platform  adopted 207 

General  Cox's  Oberlin  letter 210 

Reply  of  Judge  Dickson 211 

John  Stuart  Mill's  opinion  on  negro  suffrage  sought 212 

General  Sherman  boomed  by  the  Democrats  for  governor    -    .    .  213 

Convention  of  state-sovereignty  Democrats,  August  I7th  ....  214 

Democratic  state  convention,  August  24th 214 

General  Morgan  nominated 215 

Campaign  of  1865 216 

Election 219 

Negro  suffrage  postponed  by  legislature 219 

Election  of  U.  S.  Senator 220 

Attitude  of  Ohio  Toward  the  Quarrel  Between  President  Johnson 

and  Congress 220 

Congressional  legislation,  1865-1866 221 

Legislature  holds  aloof  from  quarrel  on  reconstruction    ...  221 

Governor  Cox's  "Johnson  letter  " 222 

Democratic,  state  convention,  May  24,  1866 223 

Union  state  convention,  June  20,  1866 226 

Endorsement  of  the  congressional  policy 226 

Call  for  national  Union  convention 227 

Response  of  Johnson  Unionists 227 

Response  of  the  Democrats 228 


12  CONTENTS  [I4g 


PAGE 


Vallandigham  left  off  the  list  of  delegates 229 

The  Johnson  state  convention,  August  7th 230 

Ohio  in  the  Philadelphia  convention,  September  3d 231 

The  campaign  of  1866 232 

Election 234 

Negro  Suffrage  Defeated 235 

Ratification  of  Fourteenth  Amendment 235 

Negro  suffrage  amendment  proposed  by  the  legislature 236 

Democratic  state  convention,  January  8,  1897 238 

Activity  of  the  state-sovereignty  Democracy 240 

Difficulty  of  securing  a  suitable  Union  candidate 240 

The  Union  state  convention,  June  igth 242 

The  "  Ohio  Deserters'  bill" 243 

The  campaign  of  1867 .....  243 

Election  .  .  248 

Defeat  of  negro  suffrage  amendment 248 

Rescinding  of  ratification  of  Fourteenth  Amendment 248 

Reenactment  of  "  Visible  Admixture  law  " 251 

Election  of  Thurman  as  U.  S.  Senator.  .  .  253 

Rejection  of  Fifteenth  Amendment 253 

Ratification  of  Fifteenth  Amendment 254 

Bibliographical  Note 255 


CHAPTER  I 

OHIO  POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR 
REVIEW  OF  POLITICAL  AFFAIRS  PRIOR  TO  1859 

AT  the  opening  of  the  period  covered  by  this  study  Ohio 
occupied  an  important  position  in  national  affairs  both  in 
dustrially  and  politically.  The  state  was  situated  midway 
between  the  agricultural  West  and  the  manufacturing  East 
and  thus  formed  a  debatable  ground  between  the  political 
tendencies  of  these  two  sections,  while  as  the  gateway  lead 
ing  from  the  South  to  the  Northwest  her  commercial  re 
lations  with  the  South  through  Cincinnati  were  such  as  to 
identify  her  interests  with  those  of  the  border  states.  Her 
state  elections  assumed  national  importance  from  the  fact 
that  they  were  held  in  October,  just  a  month  before  the 
presidential  contests,  and  because  a  governor  was  chosen 
in  the  year  preceding  the  national  elections.  This  made 
the  state  a  sort  of  "  political  weather-gauge  "  and  led  the 
two  great  political  parties  to  concentrate  their  efforts  upon 
the  Ohio  elections  to  an  unusual  degree. 

In  wealth  and  population  the  state  ranked  third  in  1860. 
The  value  of  her  real  estate  and  personal  property  amounted 
to  over  a  billion  and  a  half  dollars.1  Notwithstanding  the 
financial  depression  of  1857,  the  taxable  property  doubled 
in  value  during  the  decade  ending  in  1860,  and  on  the 
basis  of  this  valuation  taxes  for  state  and  local  purposes 
amounting  to  almost  eleven  million  dollars  were  levied  for 
the  year  1861.  This  wealth  arose  for  the  most  part  from 
agriculture,  manufacturing  being  then  in  its  infancy. 

The   population   increased   from    1,980,960   in    1850   to 

1  Report  of  the  Ohio  Commissioner  of  Statistics,  1860. 
149]  13 


I4  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

2»339>5I][  m  1860.  It  was  largely  rural,  only  one-ninth 
of  the  whole  number  of  people  living  in  cities.  Fourteen 
per  cent  of  the  inhabitants  were  foreign  born,  the  German 
element  largely  predominating.1  In  forty-six  counties  over 
ten  per  cent  of  the  population  was  foreign,  while  in  eleven 
—for  the  most  part  those  containing  the  larger  cities — this 
was  increased  to  twenty  per  cent.  Internal  migration  also 
had  a  noticeable  effect  on  the  population.  1,529,560  per 
sons  who  were  residing  in  the  state  in  1860  had  been  born 
within  its  borders.  593,043  who  had  been  born  in  the  state 
had  removed,  while  476,966  had  come  in  from  other  states. 
Finally,  there  were  included  in  the  population  of  the  state  in 
1860,  36,673  colored  people.  While  from  1800  to  1860  the 
white  population  had  increased  fifty-one  times,  the  colored 
had  increased  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  times.  There 
were  very  few  colored  people  in  the  Reserve  counties,  Erie 
with  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  and  Geauga  with  seven 
being  the  two  extremes.  About  three-fourths  of  the  whole 
number  of  colored  people  lived  south  of  the  national  road.2 

During  the  early  immigration  into  the  Northwest  Terri 
tory,  there  were  five  chief  centres  of  settlement  within  the 
boundaries  o<f  Ohio.  There  was,  first,  the  Ohio-  Company's 
purchase,  including  approximately  the  present  Washington, 
Athens,  Meigs  and  Gallia  counties,  settled  by  New  Eingland- 
ers.  Secondly,  the  Symmes  purchase,  embracing  a  tract  of 
land  in  the  southwestern  part  of  the  state  between  the  two 
Miami  rivers,  was  settled  by  immigrants  from  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania  and  the  South.  Next,  there  was  the  tract  be- 

1  Ohio  ranked  second  among  the  states  in  German  population,  third 
in  English,  fifth  in  Irish  and  Scotch  and  tenth  in  British  American. 
Of  the  cities,  Cincinnati  had  a  foreign  population  of  forty-six  per  cent 
of  her  total,  Cleveland,  forty-five  per  cent,  and  Dayton,  twenty-eight 
per  cent  with  German  and  Irish  predominating. 

2  These  statistics  of  population  have  been  taken  from  the  U.  S.  Census 
of  1860. 


I5I]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  15 

tween  the  Little  Miami  and  the  Scioto  rivers,  which  Vir 
ginia  had  reserved  to  provide  bounties  for  her  Revolution 
ary  soldiers,  and  which  consequently  was  settled  by  people 
from  Virginia  and  Kentucky.  The  Seven  Ranges,  compris 
ing  the  first  land  surveyed  by  Congress  in  the  Northwest 
Territory  and  including  the  border  counties  along  the  Ohio 
river  north  of  the  Ohio  Company's  purchase,  formed  a 
fourth  district,  which  was  settled  largely  by  Germans  and 
Scotch-Irish  from  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia.  Lastly, 
there  was  the  Western  Reserve,  including  the  twelve  counties 
in  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  state  beginning  with  Erie 
and  Huron;  this  had  been  withheld  by  Connecticut  when 
she  ceded  her  western  land  claims  to  the  government,  and 
was  settled  almost  entirely  by  New  Englanders. 

As  the  other  sections  of  the  state  were  opened  to  settle 
ment  by  Congress,  and  with  the  construction  of  Zane's  road 
and  later  the  national  road,  settlers  came  into  the  Scioto 
valley  from  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  the  states 
farther  south,  the  southern  immigrants  being  made  up  for 
the  most  part  of  the  non-slave-holding  democratic  element. 
Large  numbers  of  these  settlers  were  Scotch-Irish  and  Ger 
mans,  the  former  locating  mostly  in  the  southern  part  of 
the  state  and  the  latter  in  the  central  and  eastern  counties. 
Considerable  numbers  of  Quakers  drifted  in  from  the  South, 
particularly  from  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas,  settling  in 
Greene  and  Warren  counties  and  other  anti-slavery  sections. 
The  colored  population  of  the  state  was  being  constantly 
recruited  before  the  war,  not  only  by  the  harboring  of  run 
away  slaves,  but  also  by  the  settling  of  freed  slaves  on  little 
farms  purchased  for  them  by  their  masters  in  anti- slavery 
sections  of  the  southern  part  of  the  state.1 

^or  a  discussion  of  the  sources  of  Ohio's  population  see  Chaddock, 
Ohio  Before  1850;  in  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Eco 
nomics  and  Public  Law,  vol.  xxxi. 


1 6  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [i$2 

The  political  complexion  of  Ohio  was  determined  largely 
by  the  location  of  these  various  population  elements.  The 
Reserve  was  strongly  Whig  until  1850,  when  Cuyahoga, 
Medina,  Portage,  Trumbull  and  Erie  counties  went  Demo 
cratic  and  remained  so  until  1854,  while  Lake,  Geauga  and 
Ashtabula  were  carried  by  the  Free  Soilers.  All,  however, 
joined  in  the  Republican  movement,  and  in  1860  this  was 
the  centre  of  radical  Republicanism  in  the  state.  The 
section  included  in  the  Ohio  Company's  purchase  was  some 
times  called  politically  the  "  Reserve  of  the  South."  While 
modified  somewhat  by  southern  influence,  it  was,  next  to 
the  northern  Reserve,  the  most  radical  antislavery  section 
of  the  state.  In  the  southwestern  part  lay  a  third  section, 
extending  from  Marion  county  on  the  north,  Franklin  on 
the  east,  Warren  and  Clinton  on  the  south  and  the  state 
line  on  the  west,  which  was  dominated  by  the  Whigs  and 
later  by  the  Republicans,  yet  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
settled  largely  by  Kentucky  Whigs  whose  principal  exponent 
was  Thomas  Corwin,  it  was  much  more  conservative  than 
the  two  sections  before  mentioned.  The  counties  included 
in  the  Seven  Ranges  and  those  immediately  to  the  west 
formed  a  debatable  ground  between  the  two  parties.  Owing 
to  the  mixture  of  the  population,  elections  were  usually 
close.  The  other  sections  of  the  state,  with  the  exception 
of  Lucas  county,  were  usually  Democratic,  due  to  the  large 
element  of  Scotch-Irish  and  Germans. 

In  1832  Jackson  carried  the  state  by  4,707  majority  while 
four  years  later  Harrison's  majority  was  8,720.  During 
the  decade  from  1834  to  1844  the  state  elections  alternated 
between  the  Whigs  and  Democrats  by  majorities  ranging 
from  2,000  to  16,000.  Then  the  Whigs  held  control  until 
1851,  when,  with  a  full  Free  Soil  ticket  in  the  field,  the 
Democrats  won  by  a  majority  of  26,106  in  a  total  vote 
which  was  15,089  less  than  that  of  1849.  The  Free  Soilers 


J53]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  ^j 

in  that  year  polled  16,910  votes,  nearly  three- fourths  of 
which  came  from  the  Reserve.  In  1852  Pierce  carried  the 
state  by  a  majority  of  over  16,000,  while  Hale  received 
31,682  votes.  In  the  next  year  the  Democrats  carried  69 
counties,  their  total  vote  being  147,663  as  against  a  Whig 
vote  of  85,857  and  a  Free  Soil  vote  of  50,346,  the  last  named 
party  carrying  Ashtabula,  Lake,  Geauga,  Clinton,  Lorain 
and  Summit  counties  of  the  Reserve  and  Clinton  in  the 
southwest. 

With  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party,  the  state 
shows  a  readjustment  to  the  new  political  conditions.  In 
the  election  of  1855,  Belmont,  Darke,  Franklin,  Mont 
gomery,  Ross  and  Scioto  of  the  old  Whig  counties  went 
over  to  the  Democrats,  while  Columbiana,  Williams,  Har- 
din,  Knox,  Morgan  and  Paulding  left  the  Democratic 
ranks  for  the  new  party.  The  Republican  majority  over 
the  Democrats  in  that  year  was  15,751,  while  the  Know- 
Nothings  polled  24,276  votes.  In  regard  to  this  Know- 
Nothing  vote,  the  state  could  be  divided  by  a  line  drawn 
from  the  point  on  the  east  where  the  Ohio  becomes  the 
boundary  across  to  the  northern  limit  of  Darke  county.  Of 
the  41  counties  north  of  this  line,  only  six,  Mercer,  Rich- 
land,  Huron,  Cuyahoga,  Summit  and  Ashtabula,  gave  over 
100  votes,  while  of  the  47  counties  south  of  this  line,  only 
8  did  not  give  that  number  while  17  gave  over  300.  The 
largest  numbers  given  by  individual  counties  were;  Hamil 
ton  6538,  Belmont  1003,  Gallia  1099,  and  Highland  1256. 
Two  counties,  Madison  and  Gallia,  were  carried  by  this 
party.  In  the  election  of  1856,  the  Know-Nothings  polled 
28,126  votes,  the  greatest  gains  being  made  in  the  north 
western  quarter  of  the  state  and  in  the  river  counties  from 
Columbiana  to  Scioto.  By  1857  the  movement  had  spent 
itself,  and  Van  Trump,  the  candidate  for  governor,  re 
ceived  only  10,272  votes.  In  Ohio  as  in  the  other  states, 


ig  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

this  organization  furnished  a  temporary  home  for  some  of 
the  Whigs  who  were  not  especially  hostile  to  slavery.  In 
1855  Salmon  P.  Chase  was  elected  governor  on  the  Re 
publican  ticket  by  a  majority  of  15,751,  and  was  reflected 
two  years  later  by  the  narrow  margin  of  1,281  votes.  In 
1859  Dennison,  the  Republican  candidate,  was  elected  over 
Ranney,  his  Democratic  opponent,  by  a  majority  of  13,236. 
Omitting  the  vote  of  1857,  which  was  not  normal,  the  aver 
age  majority  of  the  Republicans  in  the  state  elections  from 
1855  to  1860  was  1 7,000. x 

The  questions  uppermost  in  Ohio  politics  at  the  begin 
ning  of  the  war  period  were,  of  course,  those  concerning 
\the  negro.  The  state  had  occupied  an  important  position 
throughout  the  whole  slavery  controversy,  both  through  the 
activity  of  the  "  Underground  Railroad,"  and  by  the  promi 
nence  of  her  political  leaders.  Because  of  the  various  ele 
ments  in  the  population  all  shades  of  opinion  on  the  subject 
were  represented  among  the  people,  from  the  radicalism  of 
Wade,  Chase  and  Giddings,  through  the  conservatism  of 
Corwin  and  Ewing  to  the  most  extreme  state  rights  doc 
trines  of  the  Democracy.  Not  only  were  these  questions 
of  prime  importance  at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  but 
they  were  to  continue  to1  be  such  throughout  the  war,  first 
in  the  matter  of  the  immigration  of  negroes  into  the  state, 
then  as  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  an  incident  of  the  war, 
and  finally  in  regard  to  extending  the  franchise  to  the 
colored  population  of  the  state. 

The  negn>,  in  1860,  was  without  political  privileges  in 
Ohio.  Throughout  the  half  century  of  the  state's  existence 
there  had  been  a  sentiment  against  granting  such  privileges, 
though  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  first  constitution 
in  1802  this  was  not  very  marked.  A  motion  in  the  con- 

JThe  above  election  statistics  have  been  taken  from  a  compilation 
made  by  the  secretary  of  state  and  published  in  his  report  for  1875. 


155]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  ig 

vention  to  strike  out  the  word  "  white  "  from  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  electoral  qualifications  was  lost  by  a  vote 
of  fourteen  to  nineteen,  while  a  proviso  was  actually  passed 
giving  suffrage  to  all  male  negroes  and  mulattoes  of  voting 
age  then  residing  in  the  state.  This  was  rescinded  later 
only  by  the  deciding  vote  of  the  president  of  the  conven 
tion.1  As  adopted,  the  constitution  limited  the  franchise 
to  "  all  white  male  inhabitants  above  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years,  having  resided  in  the  state  one  year  next  preceding 
the  election,  and  who  have  paid  or  are  charged  with  a  State 
or  county  tax."  2  A  proposition  to  allow  limited  slavery 
in  the  state  was  defeated  by  only  one  vote. 

During  the  next  few  years,  however,  a  great  increase  in 
the  immigration  of  free  negroes  occurred,  and  through  the 
predominance  of  the  southern  element  in  the  legislature, 
a  law  was  passed,  January  5,  1804,  forbidding  any  black 
or  mulatto  person  to  settle  in  the  state  unless  he  could 
furnish  a  certificate  from  some  court  of  the  United  States 
of  his  actual  freedom,  and  requiring  all  such  persons  then 
resident  in  the  state,  to  register  with  the  county  clerk.  It 
was  made  a  penal  offense  to  employ  a  negro  unless  he  could 
present  a  certificate  of  freedom,  and  to  harbor  a  fugitive 
slave  or  aid  in  his  escape  from  the  state.3  In  1807  this 
law  was  strengthened  by  prohibiting  any  negro  from  settling 
in  the  state  unless  he  could  within  twenty  days  give  bond 
to  the  amount  of  five  hundred  dollars  as  a  guarantee  of  his 
good  behavior  and  support.  The  fine  for  harboring  a 
fugitive  was  increased,  and  negroes  were  forbidden  to  give 
evidence  in  court  in  a  case  in  which  a  white  person  was  a 
party.4  Further  acts  passed  during  the  years  from  1824 
to  1831  prohibited  the  negro  from  jury  service,  deprived 

1  Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention.  2  Article  iv,  sec.  i. 

3 Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  ii,  p.  63.  *fbid.,  vol.  v,  p.  53. 


20  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

him  of  poor  maintenance  and  excluded  him  from  the  public 
schools.1  It  was  these  acts  taken  together  which  con 
stituted  the  so-called  "  Black  Laws  "  of  Ohio,  and  by  them 
the  colored  people  of  the  state  were  put  in  the  position  of 
residents  by  toleration. 

However,  in  the  interpretation  of  these  laws,  and  of  the 
constitutional  provision,  the  courts  repeatedly  held  that 
the  word  "  white  "  comprehended  all  persons  having  more 
white  than  colored  blood.2  In  some  of  the  counties,  per 
sons  having  even  a  preponderance  of  negro  blood  exercised 
the  voting  privilege,  and  the  sentiment  of  the  people  was 
such  as  not  to  interfere.  In  1849  tne  Free  Soilers  held  the 
balance  of  power  in  the  legislature,  and  by  a  combination 
with  the  Democrats  to  elect  Chase  to  the  United  States 
Senate,  these  "  Black  Laws  "  were  all  repealed  except  those 
relating  to  the  jury  service  and  poor  maintenance.3 

In  the  midst  of  the  excitement  over  the  Federal  legisla 
tion  of  1850,  a  convention  assembled  to  draft  a  new  con 
stitution  for  the  state.  Notwithstanding  the  presentation 
of  a  number  of  petitions  praying  for  the  enfranchisement 
of  the  negro,  the  fundamental  law  was  not  changed  in  this 
respect,  principally  because  of  the  feeling  that  any  such 
change  would  prevent  its  ratification  at  the  polls.  The  fran 
chise  was  conferred  on  "  every  white  male  citizen  of  the 
United  States  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  "  who  pos 
sessed  certain  residence  qualifications.*  One  concession 
was  made  to  the  negro  in  that  he  was  to  be  included  in 
determining  the  apportionment  for  the  state  legislature. 

In  the  election  of   1855   the  new   Republican  party  ob- 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  43;  vol.  xxvii,  pp.  35  and  72;  vol.  xxix, 
p.  94- 

2  Ohio  Reports,  vol.  iv,  p.  53;  vol.  xi,  pp.  372  and  376;  vol.  xii,  p.  237. 

3  Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  pp.  90  et  seq. 

4  Art.  v,  sec.  i. 


157]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  2l 

tained  a  majority  in  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  and 
proceeded  to  enact  a  series  of  Personal  Liberty  laws.  The 
first  of  these  forbade  the  confinement  in  any  of  the  prisons 
or  jails  of  the  state,  of  "  any  person  or  persons  charged 
with  simply  being  a  fugitive  from  slavery."  x  A  second 
forbade  the  bringing  into  the  state  of  any  person  with  the 
intention  of  holding  him  as  a  slave,  and  declared  that 
"  every  person  coming  within  this  State  otherwise  than  as 
a  person  held  to  service  in  another  State  under  the  laws 
thereof  and  escaping  into  this  State,  shall  be  deemed  and 
held  in  all  courts  as  absolutely  free."  Any  person  seizing 
or  arresting  another  upon  pretense  or  claim  that  he  was  a 
fugitive  from  justice,  was  to  be  deemed  guilty  of  false 
imprisonment,  and  if  anyone  attempted  to  remove  a  person 
out  of  the  state  for  the  purpose  of  holding  him  as  a  slave 
in  some  other  state,  he  was  to  be  held  liable  for  the  crime 
of  kidnapping.  Nothing  in  the  law  was  to  apply  to  any  act 
done  by  any  persons  under  authority  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  or  any  law  made  in  pursuance  of  it.2 
A  third  act  provided  that  no  person  should  attempt  to  arrest 
or  kidnap  any  free  black  with  the  intention  of  carrying  him 
out  of  the  state,  and  that  no  negro  claimed  as  a  fugitive 
should  be  kidnapped  or  carried  out  of  the  state  without  being 
first  taken  before  the  proper  court  and  the  proof  established 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  that  he  was 
property.3 

This  legislation,  while  presuming  not  to  interfere  with 
the  execution  of  the  Federal  laws,  yet  furnished  an  oppor 
tunity  to  hamper  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  wherever 
possible.  It  was  not  permitted  to  remain  long  in  operation, 
however,  for  in  the  election  of  1857  the  Democrats  carried 

1  April  16,  1857.     Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  liv,  p.  170. 

2  April  17,  1857.     Ibid.,  p.  186. 

3  April  17,  1857.     Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  liv,  p.  221. 


22  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

both  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  at  the  first  session  of 
the  new  Assembly  in  1858  the  first  two  of  these  acts  were 
promptly  repealed.1  An  act  known  as  the  "  Visible  Ad 
mixture  law  "  was  passed  which  provided  that  the  judges 
at  any  election  should  reject  the  vote  of  any  person  "  when 
ever  it  shall  appear  to  such  judge  or  judges  that  the  person 
so  offering  to  vote  has  a  distinct  and  visible  admixture  of 
African  blood."  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  judges  of  the 
courts  of  common  pleas  to  give  this  act  especially  in  charge 
to  the  grand  jury  at  each  term  of  court.2  Throughout  the 
period  of  the  struggle  over  slavery  the  Democratic  party 
stood  on  the  sentiment  expressed  in  this  act.  In  the  state 
platform  of  1858  it  was  endorsed  as  "  eminently  wise  and 
judicious  and  calculated  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  the 
state  and  the  prosperity  of  the  people/'  and  the  party  was 
placed  on  record  as  "  opposed  to  negro  suffrage  and  negro 
equality  without  reference  to  shade  or  proportion  of 
African  blood." 

This  attempt  of  the  legislative  department  to  put  an  in 
terpretation  on  a  clause  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state 
was  not  allowed  to  go  unchallenged  by  the  Republicans,  who 
still  retained  control  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  a  case 
which  went  up  to  it  from  the  Democratic  county  of  Butler, 
where  the  election  judges  had  rejected  the  vote  of  a  man 
of  one-eighth  African  blood  in  the  presidential  election  of 
1856,  the  court  held,  February  14,  1860,  that  though  the 
clauses,  concerning  suffrage  were  worded  differently  in  the 
two  constitutions,  there  was  no  change  in  the  meaning, 
and  as  the  clause  of  the  first  constitution  had  been  inter 
preted  to  include  persons  having  a  preponderance  of  white 
blood,  it  remained  only  for  the  judges  to  abide  by  these  de 
cisions  and  hence  to  declare  the  person  entitled  to  vote. 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Iv,  pp.  10  and  19. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  120. 


159]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  23 

As  to  the  "  Visible  Admixture  law,"  the  court  held  that  it 
was  not  within  the  "  scope  of  the  legislative  power  to  give 
to  the  courts  an  authoritative  construction  of  a  provision 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  State/'  The  simple  question  for 
the  court  to  determine  was,  "  in  what  sense  the  word 
'  white '  was  used  in  the  Constitution,  and  in  that  sense, 
when  ascertained,  we  suppose  it  to  be  obligatory  both  upon 
us  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State."1  With  the 
coming-on  of  the  war,  other  questions  came  into  prominence, 
but  after  the  close  of  hostilities,  negro  suffrage  became  a 
vital  political  issue  in  the  state.2 

RELATIONS    WITH    THE    BORDER    STATES    DURING    1859    AND 

i860 

The  campaign  of  1859  was  a  notable  one  in  the  politics 
of  the  state,  not  only  on  account  of  the  efforts  of  the  Re 
publicans  to  regain  control  of  the  legislature,  but  also  be 
cause  of  the  prominence  given  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  of 
1850.  This  act  was  brought  conspicuously  before  the  peo 
ple  in  several  of  the  northern  states  through  the  attempts  of 
the  slave  owners  to  recapture  their  slaves  under  its  provis 
ions,  but  especially  so  in  Ohio  in  connection  with  the  Oberlin- 
Wellington  rescue  case.  The  facts  of  this  case  were 
these.  Two  slave  catchers  came  to  Oberlin  in  September, 
1858,  in  search  of  an  escaped  slave.  Discovering  there  a 
young  negro  who  had  escaped  from  a  neighbor  of  theirs 
some  two  years  before,  they  decoyed  this  negro  some  dis 
tance  out  of  the  village,  where  he  was  seized  and  hurried 
to  Wellington,  nine  miles  away,  to  be  placed  on  a  train 
bound  for  Columbus.  A  crowd,  composed  largely  of  stu 
dents  and  professors  from  Oberlin  college,  pursued  the 
party  and  rescued  the  captive.  As  a  result,  thirty-seven 

Anderson  vs.  Milliken,  9  Ohio  State  Reports,  p.  568. 
•  Cf.  chapter  iv. 


24  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

citizens  of  Oberlin  and  Wellington  were  indicted  in  the 
United  States  District  Court  at  Cleveland,  for  violation  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Two  of  these,  one  a  colored  man 
of  unusual  intellectual  ability,  were  found  guilty  and  sen 
tenced  to  a  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  case  attracted  wide 
notice  throughout  the  North ;  and  while  the  other  prisoners 
were  still  in  jail  awaiting  trial,  an  immense  mass  meeting 
was  held  in  Cleveland,  May  24th,  addressed  by  Governor 
Chase,  Senator  Wade  and  other  prominent  anti-slavery 
leaders. 

An  application  was  made  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
state  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  directed  to  the  District 
Court,  ordering  the  release  of  the  prisoners,  and  this  threat 
ened  to  produce  a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between  the  courts 
of  the  United  States  and  the  state.  The  Supreme  Court  was 
composed  at  the  time  entirely  of  Republicans,  and  it  was 
confidently  expected  by  the  people  of  the  Reserve  that  the 
writ  would  be  allowed  on  the  ground  of  the  unconstitutional 
ly  of  the  law.  In  the  face  of  this  pressure,  Chief  Justice 
Swan  delivered  an  able  and  courageous  opinion  which  was 
concurred  in  by  two  of  his  associates,  Judges  Peck  and 
Scott.  He  held  that  it  was  not  in  the  province  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  to  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to 
legislate  on  a  subject  when  its  authority  to  do  so  had  been 
well  settled  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
several  decisions.  Although  his  personal  feelings  were  not 
in  accord  with  his  judicial  opinion,  he  was  compelled  under 
his  oath  to  sustain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws,  and  remand  the  prisoners.1  The  other  two  mem 
bers  of  the  Court,  Judges  Brinkerhoff  and  Sutliff,  delivered 
a  dissenting  opinion  holding  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  un 
constitutional. 

1  9  Ohio  State  Reports,  p.  77. 


l6l]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  2$ 

In  the  meantime,  the  slave  catchers  had  been  indicted  in 
Lorain  county  under  the  act  of  1857  for  kidnapping  a  negro 
and  attempting  to  carry  him  out  of  the  state.  The  matter 
was  finally  closed  by  an  agreement  of  the  parties  concerned 
for  a  mutual  annulling  of  all  indictments.  The  two  per 
sons  convicted  served  out  their  sentences  and  returned  home 
to  be  received  as  conquering  heroes.1 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  handed  down 
on  May  3Oth,  and  four  days  later  the  Republicans  held  their 
state  convention.  Indignant  at  the  refusal  of  the  court 
to  declare  the  law  of  1850  unconstitutional,  the  radical 
element  of  the  party  refused  to  support  Judge  Swan,  whose 
term  was  just  expiring,  for  a  renomination,  and  he  was 
accordingly  sacrificed.  The  platform  demanded  "  that 
provision  be  made  for  reversing  the  decisions  of  the  District 
and  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States,  by  appeal  or  writ 
of  error,  and  for  securing  fair  and  impartial  juries  in  prose 
cutions  for  alleged  violations  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,"  and  called  for  the  "  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act  of  1850  as  subversive  of  both  the  rights  of  the  states 
and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  as  contrary  to  the  plain 
est  duties  of  humanity  and  justice,  and  as  abhorrent  to  the 
moral  sense  of  the  civilized  world."  2  William  Dennison 
of  Columbus,  a  representative  of  the  strong  anti-slavery 
element  and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Republican  party 
in  Ohio,  was  nominated  for  governor. 

The  Democrats  went  into  the  campaign  with  Rufus  P. 
Ranney  of  Cleveland,  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  the  state, 
and  a  former  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  their  candidate 

1  Shipherd,    History    of  the    Oberlin-  Wellington    Rescue.     See    also 
Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  ii,  p.  362. 

2  The  platforms  as  used  in  this  study  have  been  taken  from  a  pamphlet 
entitled,   "  The    Ohio    Platforms   of  the   Republican   and  Democratic 
Parties  from  1855  to  1882." 


26  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

for  governor.  In  their  platform,  in  addition  to  opposing 
the  granting  of  political  rights  to  the  negro,  they  expressed 
adherence  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
approved  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  and  affirmed  "  the  abso 
lute  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union  in  regard  to 
their  domestic  institutions,  and  the  perfect  compatibility  of 
the  confederation  of  free  and  slave  States  to  exist  harmon 
iously  together  under  the  provisions  of  our  Federal  Con 
stitution." 

The  campaign  was  a  memorable  one.  In  a  series  of  joint 
debates  the  two  candidates  for  governor  spoke  in  all  sec 
tions  of  the  state.  Both  Lincoln  and  Douglas  visited  Ohio, 
and  took  part  in  the  canvass.  The  Democrats  made  much 
of  the  sacrificing  of  Judge  Swan,  and  while  the  more  con 
servative  Republicans  attempted  to  attribute  his  defeat  to 
other  reasons,  the  radicals  boldly  asserted  that  it  was  due 
solely  to  his  decision.1 

Dennison's  majority  over  Ranney  in  the  election  was 
about  the  normal  Republican  majority,  and  the  legislature 
as  chosen  stood :  Senate,  twenty-five  Republicans  and  ten 
Democrats;  House,  fifty-eight  Republicans,  forty-six  Demo 
crats  and  one  Independent. 

As  this  was  to  be  the  first  of  the  war  legislatures,  an  an 
alysis  of  its  membership  may  be  of  some  interest.  Of  the 

1  A  letter  written  by  R.  P.  Spalding,  who  had  been  one  of  the  at 
torneys  for  the  defense  in  the  trials  at  Cleveland,  was  reprinted  widely 
in  the  press  during  the  campaign.  In  it  he  asserted  that  Judge  Swan 
was  not  dropped,  as  some  said,  because  of  his  residence  in  Columbus. 
"  He  was  dropped  for  the  reason  that  he,  as  a  judicial  officer,  recog 
nized  the  Fugitive  Slave  enactment  of  1850  to  be  of  binding  force  in 
Ohio,  and  the  two  judges  who  were  with  him  in  opinion  will  be 
dropped  in  the  same  way  so  soon  as  they  are  reached  in  the  order  of 
time.  We  do  not  recognize  men  to  be  Republicans  here  in  northern 
Ohio  who  will  for  a  moment  sustain  this  miserable  enactment." 

For  the  importance  of  the  campaign  in  general  political  affairs,  see 
Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  ii,  p.  380. 


ELECTION  fa  GOVERNOR. 
1859 

Republican  Counties  Shaded 
Democratic  Counties  Unshaded 


POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  2? 

thirty-five  members  of  the  upper  branch,  twenty-four  had 
never  served  in  the  Senate  before,  while  only  two  were  re- 
elected  from  the  preceding  Senate.  Only  twenty  of  the  one 
hundred  and  five  members  of  the  lower  branch  had  served 
in  the  preceding  House.  As  in  this  case,  so  throughout  the 
period,  very  few  members  of  the  Assembly  were  reflected 
to  second  terms.  As  to  nativity,  one-third  of  the  Senators 
were  natives  of  the  state;  while  Pennsylvania,  New  York 
and  Virginia  contributed  four  each,  Massachusetts  and  Con 
necticut  three  each,  and  several  states  furnished  one  each. 
Of  the  members  of  the  House,  forty-five  were  natives  of  the 
state;  twenty-one  were  from  Pennsylvania;  fourteen,  from 
New  York ;  five,  from  Maryland ;  four,  from  Virginia ;  with 
several  other  states  represented  by  smaller  numbers.  The 
large  immigration  into  the  state  was  thus  reflected  in  the 
composition  of  the  legislature,  while  the  fact  that  so  many 
of  the  members  were  connected  with  Pennsylvania,  New 
York  and  the  South  by  kindred  ties,  accounts  in  large  meas 
ure  for  their  conservative  attitude  on  the  great  questions  of 
the  day  prior  to  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 

This  legislature  was  called  upon  to  undo  the  work  of  its 
predecessor,  and  to  voice  the  sentiment  of  the  party  which 
was  in  control.  In  addition  to  the  issues  raised  in  the  cam 
paign,  another  question  was  injected  into  the  politics  of  the 
state  during  the  latter  part  of  the  year  by  the  raid  of  John 
Brown.  It  was  felt  in  Virginia  that  this  was  only  the  fore 
runner  of  larger  expeditions  by  bands  organized  in  Ohio 
and  other  northern  states,  and  that  efforts  would  be  made 
to  rescue  Brown  and  his  associates,  or  in  case  they  were 
executed,  to  make  reprisals  on  Virginia  citizens  and  hold 
them  as  hostages.  Governor  Wise  addressed  a  letter  to 
President  Buchanan  stating  his  apprehensions,  and  assert 
ing  that  if  another  invasion  should  assail  the  state  of  Vir 
ginia,  he  would  "  pursue  the  invaders  into  any  territory  and 


28  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

punish  them  wherever  they  could  be  reached  by  arms."  A 
copy  of  this  letter  was  sent  to  Governor  Chase,  with  a  repe 
tition  of  the  purpose  to  pursue  invaders  into  the  adjoining- 
states.  Chase  replied  under  date  of  December  ist  express 
ing  ignorance  of  any  such  military  preparations,  and  add 
ing  :  "  Whenever  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  that  unlawful 
combinations  are  being  formed  in  Ohio  for  the  invasion  of 
Virginia,  it  will  become  the  duty  of  the  Governor  to  break 
them  up  and  that  duty  will  be  promptly  performed."  As 
to  the  threatened  invasion  of  Ohio,  he  said  that  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  indicated  the  mode  in  which  persons 
charged  with  crime  in  another  state  could  be  demanded, 
and  assured  the  governor  that  the  people  of  the  state  would 
require  from  her  authorities  the  punctual  fulfilment  of 
every  obligation  to  the  other  members  of  the  Union.  "They 
cannot  consent,  however,  to  the  invasion  of  her  territory  by 
armed  bodies  from  other  States,  even  for  the  purpose  of  pur 
suing  and  arresting  fugitives  from  justice."  l 

In  his  annual  message,  January  2,  1860,  Governor  Chase 
recommended  the  repeal  of  the  "  Visible  Admixture  law  ", 
and  the  reenactment  of  the  Personal  Liberty  laws.  In  re 
peated  instances,  he  asserted,  the  state  had  been 

clandestinely  entered  and  peaceful  inhabitants,  guilty  of  no 
crime  but  color,  have  been  cruelly  kidnapped;  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act,  necessarily  repugnant  to  public  sentiment,  and  be 
lieved  by  a  large  majority  to  be  unconstitutional  in  some  of  its 
conspicuous  provisions,  if  not  in  its  origin,  has  been  executed 
within  her  limits  with  circumstances  of  aggravation  which 
could  not  fail  to  excite  the  deepest  feeling. 

As  to  the  raid  of  John  Brown  he  said : 

While  we  will  not  disavow  just  admiration  of  noble  qualities, 
1  Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  191. 


165]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  29 

by  whomsoever  displayed,  we  must  not  the  less,  but  rather  the 
more,  earnestly  condemn  all  inroads  into  States,  not  merely  at 
peace  with  us  but  united  to  us  by  the  bonds  of  political  union, 
and  all  attempts  to  excite  within  their  borders  servile  insur 
rection,  necessarily  to  involve  the  country  in  the  calamities  of 
civil  as  well  as  servile  war. 

Laying  the  correspondence  of  the  governor  of  Virginia 
before  the  Assembly,  he  declared  that  while  the  people  of 
Ohio  would  suffer  no  invasion  of  their  own  territory,  they 
would  countenance  no  invasion  of  other  states.1 

While  Chase's  attack  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was 
resented  by  the  conservatives  of  the  party,  the  inaugural 
address  of  Governor  Dennison,  delivered  on  January  Qth, 
was  even  more  bold.  He  attributed  the  increase  of  popu 
lation  and  the  development  of  the  resources  of  the  state 
almost  entirely  to  the  fact  that  slavery  was  prohibited  by 
the  Ordinance  of  1787.  The  voice  of  the  people  of  the 
state,  he  maintained,  had  been  given  against  slavery.  He 
denied  the  binding  authority  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  insisted  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
Congress  to  prohibit  by  express  enactment  the  extension 
of  slavery  into  any  free  territory.  He  would  first  check  the 
aggressions  of  slavery  and  confine  it  within  its  existing 
boundaries;  then  he  would  have  the  government  provide 
some  means  of  promoting  voluntary  emigration  of  the  free 
negroes  to  homesteads  in  a  congenial  climate.  He  sug 
gested  for  this  purpose  the  acquisition  of  some  rich  region 
in  Central  or  South  America  and  its  erection  into  a  province 
for  the  colored  people  under  national  supervision.2  This 
strong  Republican  doctrine  voiced  the  true  sentiment  of  the 
new  governor.  He  was  of  the  radical  wing  of  the  party, 
and  in  the  acts  of  his  administration  he  represented  that 
element. 

1  Executive  Documents,  1859,  pt.  ii,  p.  25.  *Ibid.,  p.  163. 


3o  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [166 

The  first  matter  of  importance  to  be  taken  up  by  the  As 
sembly  was  the  selection  of  a  United  States  Senator  to  suc 
ceed  George  E.  Pugh,  who  had  been  chosen  by  a  Demo 
cratic  legislature  in  1854.  Chase  was  a  prominent  candidate 
for  the  place,  and  in  the  organization  of  the  two  branches 
his  supporters  were  in  the  majority.  Their  candidate,  Rich 
ard  C.  Parsons  of  Cleveland,  was  elected  Speaker  of  the 
House.  In  the  first  caucus  on  the  Senatorial  question,  held 
a  few  days  after  the  organization,  decided  opposition  was 
shown  toward  Chase  among  the  conservative  element,  es 
pecially  on  account  of  the  abolition  sentiments  expressed  in 
his  message.  On  February  ist  the  Republican  members 
met  again,  and  the  question  was  pushed  to  a  vote  in  spite  of 
the  attempt  of  the  conservatives  to  postpone  action.  Eleven 
of  these  were  absent  when  the  ballot  was  taken,  and  of  the 
remaining  seventy-one  votes,  Chase  received  fifty-one,  Co 
lumbus  Delano,  for  some  years  to  be  the  opponent  of  Chase, 
received  ten,  and  Thomas  Corwin,  eight,  with  one  each  for 
John  Sherman  and  Valentine  Horton,  the  Representative 
in  Congress  from  the  Meigs  county  district.  In  the  Assem 
bly  a  resolution  of  the  Senate  to  proceed  to  joint  convention 
for  the  election  of  a  Senator  passed  the  House  by  the  narrow 
margin  of  two  votes,  six  of  the  conservatives  voting  with 
the  Democrats  against  it.  On  the  final  ballot,  Chase  re 
ceived  seventy-six  votes,  Pugh,  fifty-three,  while  five  con 
servatives  cast  their  ballots  for  Corwin.1 

This  division  of  the  Republicans  into  radicals  and  conser 
vatives  appeared  throughout  the  session  on  most  of  the  im 
portant  measures  that  came  up.  In  the  House  six  of  the 
conservatives  2  usually  voted  with  the  Democrats  on  meas- 

1  House  Journal,  1860,  p.  158. 

'These  were  Ceilings  of  Scioto,  Hamilton  of  Logan,  Jolly  of  High 
land,  Nigh  of  Lawrence,  Parrott  of  Montgomery  and  Wood  of  Ottawa. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  31 

ures  proposed  by  the  radicals  and  were  able  in  this  way  to 
block  legislation.  In  the  Senate,  Harrison  of  Madison, 
Jones  of  Delaware  and  Moore  of  Butler  were  the  conser 
vative  leaders,  while  Professor  Monroe  of  Oberlin,  James 
A.  Garfield  of  Cuyahoga  and  Jacob  D.  Cox  of  Trumbull, 
a  son-in-law  of  the  President  of  Oberlin  College,  cham 
pioned  the  doctrines  of  the  Reserve. 

During  the  latter  part  of  January,  the  legislatures  and 
state  officials  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  who  had  assem 
bled  at  Louisville  to  celebrate  the  completion  of  the  Louis 
ville  and  Nashville  railroad,  were  invited  to  visit  Columbus 
as  guests  of  the  state.  In  presenting  the  invitation  at 
Louisville,  Garfield,  as  chairman  of  the  legislative  com 
mittee,  sounded  a  note  which,  when  heard  from  the  Peace 
Democrats  later,  was  to  be  denounced  as  treasonable.  He 
said: 

Brethren,  we  have  too  long  heard  of  a  North  and  a  South. 
Their  angry  words  have  too  long  vexed  the  hearts  of  our  fel 
low  citizens.  But  there  is  a  third  voice  to  be  heard  ere  long. 
I  hope  and  believe  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  the  great 
West  shall  speak  and  her  voice  shall  be  heard  from  sea  to  sea. 
In  that  voice  shall  mingle  no  tones  of  doubt  or  uncertainty. 
In  that  utterance  shall  be  heard  no  note  of  disunion.  For 
while  this  mighty  river  bears  on  its  bosom  the  wealth  of  this 
great  valley,  so  long  must  this  circle  of  States  be  undivided 
and  the  bonds  of  union  unbroken. 

Three  days  were  spent  by  the  guests  within  the  state,  and 
in  the  speech-making  which  formed  an  important  part  of 
the  entertainment,  much  was  said  of  the  natural  community 
of  interests  and  feeling  of  the  states  of  the  Mississippi  val 
ley,  and  of  the  harmony  which  should  exist  among  them. 
In  responding  to  the  toast,  "  Ohio  and  her  Guests  ",  Gov 
ernor  Dennison  said : 


32  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

The  people  of  Ohio  ask  no  peculiar  privileges  under  the  Con 
stitution.  They  cheerfully  recognize  as  belonging  to  their 
brethren  all  the  rights  they  claim  for  themselves.  The  exclu 
sive  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  establish  and  maintain 
undisturbed  their  domestic  institutions,  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  National  confederacy.1 

It  was  impossible  for  the  good  fellowship  of  this  occasion 
to  endure  through  the  political  affairs  of  the  succeeding 
months,  but  it  is  of  importance  in  showing  the  community 
of  feeling  existing  between  Ohio  and  the  border  states 
before  the  war. 

Following  the  recommendations  of  Governor  Chase  in 
his  annual  message,  the  program  of  the  majority  party  in 
the  legislature  included  the  reenactment  of  the  Personal 
Liberty  laws  and  the  repeal  of  the  "  Visible  Admixture 
law/'  while  the  Democrats  labored  to  secure  legislation 
prohibiting  the  immigration  of  negroes  into  the  state  and 
further  to  restrict  the  privileges  of  those  already  within  her 
borders. 

With  the  first  of  these  ideas  in  view,  bills  were  intro 
duced  in  the  House  by  Baldwin  of  Mahoning  and  in  the 
Senate  by  Monroe  of  Lorain,  to  prevent  slaveholding  and 
kidnapping  in  Ohio.  Monroe's  bill  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee  of  Republicans  from  which  it  was  reported  favor 
ably  and  passed,  against  the  opposition  of  the  conservatives 
and  Democrats.2  The  House  bill  was  reported  from  a 
select  committee  with  a  section  added  repealing  the  acts  of 
June  19,  1835,  and  April  17,  1857,  which  the  committee 
held  introduced  the  principle  of  class  legislation.3  It  was 

1 A  complete  account  of  this  visit  was  published  under  the  title  "  Visit 
of  the  Legislatures  of  Ky.  and  Tenn"     Cinn.,  1860. 
2  Senate  Journal,  1860,  pp.  20  and  228. 
'The  report  of  the  committee  is  printed  in  the  House  Journal  for 


169]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  33 

tabled  together  with  the  Senate  measure.  Bills  were  also 
introduced  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the  prisons  and  jails  of 
the  state  for  the  confinement  of  persons  charged  merely 
with  being  fugitives  from  slavery,  but  in  neither  house  did 
they  get  further  than  to  select  committees. 

The  Senate  passed  a  bill  to  repeal  the  "  Visible  Admixture 
law  ",  but  the  House  tabled  it.  A  similar  bill,  introduced 
in  the  House,  was  referred  to  the  judiciary  committee, 
which  recommended  that  it  be  indefinitely  postponed.  The 
opinion  of  the  majority  was  that  the  law  was  merely  a 
legislative  demand  for  a  review  by  the  courts  of  their  earlier 
decisions  which  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  rights  or  dig 
nity  of  a  judicial  body,  and  that  the  law  ought  to  stand 
until  its  constitutionality  should  be  determined.  The  mem 
bers  of  the  committee  from  the  Reserve  presented  a  minor 
ity  report,  holding  that  the  interpretation  of  any  provision 
of  the  constitution  was  a  judicial,  not  a  legislative,  act. 
"  If  the  legislature  has  the  power  to  give  construction  to 
any  provision  of  the  Constitution,  that  construction  may  so 
enlarge  or  restrict  as  to  do  away  with  the  effect  of  the  pro 
vision."  *  The  bill  with  the  reports  was  laid  on  the  table, 
and  was  not  taken  up  again  during  the  session.  These  re 
ports  were  made  on  February  /th,  just  a  week  before  the 
decision  of  the  court  in  the  Butler  county  case  was  an 
nounced.2  The  opinion  was  delivered  by  Judge  Gholson, 
the  new  member  of  the  court  who  had  been  put  on  the  ticket 
in  place  of  Judge  Swan.  On  this  decision  the  Reserve  was 
content  to  let  the  matter  rest,  without  any  legislative  action, 
while  the  conservatives  were  much  dissatisfied  with  it.  The 
Democratic  press  commented  on  the  fact  that  no  dissenting 

1860,  Appendix,  p.  126.  The  act  of  1835  referred  only  to  the  kidnap 
ping  of  white  persons,  while  that  of  1857  referred  to  the  kidnapping  of 
free  negroes. 

*  House  Journal.  1860,  App.,  p.  163.  2  Cf.  supra,  p.  22. 


34 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


opinion  was  delivered,  and  concluded  that  Judges  Peck  and 
Scott  had  surrendered  to  the  Oberlin  faction  through  fear 
of  the  condemnation  pronounced  on  them  by  Spalding.1 

The  Democrats,  backed  by  many  petitions  from  the  south 
ern  counties  on  the  subject,  kept  up  an  agitation  for  the  re 
striction  of  the  immigration  of  negroes  into  the  state.  On 
the  second  day  of  the  session  a  measure  was  introduced  in 
the  House  providing  that  after  the  first  -of  the  following 
July,  it  should  be  unlawful  for  any  negro  or  mulatto  person 
to  come  into  the  state,  and  requiring  such  as  were  already 
residents  to  be  registered  by  the  assessors  and  to  obtain 
certificates  of  registration.2  The  bill  went  to  the  judiciary 
committee,  which  reported  unfavorably  to  its  passage.  One 
of  the  members,  the  representative  from  Greene  county,  an 
nexed  to  the  report  the  reasons  for  his  decision.  While  ad 
mitting  the  magnitude  of  the  evil  and  the  social  repugnance 
of  the  two  races,  he  put  his  objection  on  constitutional 
grounds.  By  the  decision  of  the  courts  of  the  state,  mu- 
lattoes  were  held  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 
hence  the  law  would  deprive  them  of  their  privileges  guar 
anteed  by  the  national  Constitution.  His  ultimate  solution 
was  that  recommended  by  Governor  Dennison.  During 
the  discussion  of  this  measure,  which  continued  from  time 
to  time  throughout  the  session,  the  Democrats  emphasized 
the  idea  that  they  did  not  wish  to  make  the  question  a 
political  one,  and  put  their  opposition  to  immigration  purely 
on  social  and  industrial  grounds.  By  a  majority  of  five, 
however,  the  Republicans  were  able  to  have  the  bill  indefi 
nitely  postponed,3  and  during  the  next  session,  when  the 
author  moved  to  take  up  the  matter,  his  motion  was  lost  by 
a  tie  vote.4 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  February  isth.          2  House  Journal,  1860,  p.  21. 
9  Ibid.,  1860,  p.  523.  *Ibid.,  1861,  p.  60. 


171]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  35 

In  addition  to  these  things,  the  question  what  attitude 
the  state  should  take  in  regard  to  the  raid  of  John  Brown 
claimed  much  attention  of  the  legislature.  As  soon  as 
the  House  was  organized,  a  set  of  resolutions  on  the  sub 
ject  was  offered  by  Hutch eson  of  Madison,  an  extreme 
Democrat,  while  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  Senate 
by  means  of  a  bill  introduced  by  Harrison.  In  the  Hutche- 
son  resolutions,1  the  raid  was  characterized  as  an  outrage 
not  only  against  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia  but  against 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  the  people  of 
Virginia  were  congratulated  on  the  suppression  of  the  out 
break.  The  citizens  of  Ohio,  they  declared,  "  disavow,  as 
they  always  have  done,  any  right  or  wish  to  interfere  in  any 
manner  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  other  States 
of  the  Union."  It  was  provided  that  a  copy  of  the  resolu 
tions  be  sent  to  the  governor  of  Virginia  to  be  laid  by  him 
before  the  legislature  of  that  state.  As  a  substitute,  the 
radicals  offered  a  resolution  asserting  that  the  people  of  the 
state,  looking  upon  slavery  as  an  evil,  "  feel  it  to  be  their 
duty  to  use  all  power  consistent  with  the  National  compact 
to  prevent  its  increase,  to  mitigate  and  finally  to  eradicate 
the  evil."  2  The  conservatives  proposed  a  second  substitute 
which  declared  opposition  to  all  interference  with  slavery 
as  it  existed,  but  also  to  its  extension,  and  denounced  all  un 
lawful  combinations  against  the  peace  and  safety  of  other 
members  of  the  Federal  Union.  The  southern  states  were 
called  upon  to  enact  legislation  which  would  protect  the 
lives  and  property  of  northern  citizens  sojourning  in  the 
South.3  This  latter  substitute  was  adopted  by  a  combin 
ation  of  the  radicals  and  conservatives,  but  on  the  question 
of  incorporating  it  in  the  radical  resolutions,  fourteen  Re 
publicans  voted  with  the  Democrats,  thus  defeating  it.4 

1  House  Journal ,  1860,  p.  22.  *  Ibid.,  1860,  p.  397. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  398.  * Ibid.,  p.  399. 


36  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

The  conservatives,  holding  the  balance  of  power,  refused  to 
permit  either  the  Hutcheson  or  the  radical  resolutions  to 
pass. 

The  original  resolutions  were  sent  to  the  governor  of 
Virginia  by  the  Democrats,  with  an  explanation  of  the  action 
of  the  House,  and  an  assurance  that,  though  repudiated  by 
a  Republican  legislature,  they  reflected  the  sentiments  of 
at  least  one  hundred  and  seventy-one  thousand  voters  of 
Ohio.  Governor  Letcher,  in  transmitting  them  to  his 
legislature,  said: 

It  is  a  source  of  infinite  satisfaction  to  me  to  know  that  sen 
timents  so  natural  and  conservative  as  those  .  .  .  are  enter 
tained  by  the  minority  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  of  that  State.  .  .  .  The  patriotic  spirit  they  have 
exhibited  is,  in  times  like  these,  when  dangers  threaten  us  on 
all  sides,  worthy  of  the  highest  commendation  and  should  be 
appropriately  responded  to. 

The  legislature  acted  at  once  by  a  resolution  accepting  the 
sympathy  of  the  senders  and  rejoicing  in  their  patriotic 
purpose  "  faithfully  to  observe  and  respect  the  rights  and 
institutions  of  the  slaveholding  States  guaranteed  by  the 
Federal  compact,  and  to  promote  that  comity  between  the 
States  so  essential  to  a  longer  continuance  of  the  Union." 
The  Republicans  in  refusing  to  pass  the  resolutions,  it 
was  held, 

furnish  additional  proof  of  a  settled  purpose  of  hostility  by 
their  party  to  the  institutions  of  the  slave-holding  States,  of  an 
utter  insensibility  to  the  fraternal  relations  which  ought  to 
exist  between  the  citizens  of  a  common  government,  and  a 
reckless  disregard  of  the  sacred  obligations  of  the  Federal  Con 
stitution,  which,  if  persisted  in,  must  eventuate  in  a  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union.1 

1  Copies  of  all  the  documents  are  printed  in  the  Cleveland  National 
Democrat,  March  27th,  and  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  March  3ist. 


1 73]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  37 

The  bill  which  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Harrison, 
dubbed  by  the  radicals  the  "  Harrison  Servility  bill,"  made 
it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  person  to  set  on  foot  or  provide 
arms  for  any  military  enterprise  or  expedition  against  the 
territory  or  people  of  any  other  state,  or  to  enable  any 
persons  forcibly  to  resist  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  any 
state. l  In  giving  his  reasons  for  urging  its  passage,  its 
author  held  that  Ohio's' position  on  the  slavery  question  had 
been  greatly  misunderstood,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Assembly  to  make  it  clear. 

The  passage  of  this  bill  in  a  becoming  spirit  will  be  appre 
ciated  by  all  right-minded  men  as  the  olive  branch  of  peace; 
and  having  done  this  act  of  preventive  justice,  we  can  with 
much  more  unanimity  and  moral  power  resist  all  attempted 
encroachments  from  any  other  quarter.2 

After  some  debate  the  measure  was  referred  to  a  select  com 
mittee  consisting  of  two  conservatives  and  one  radical.  By 
a  report  signed  by  the  conservative  members,  its  passage 
was  recommended,  while  Monroe,  the  minority  member, 
presented  a  report  giving  as  reasons  why  the  bill  should 
not  become  a  law :  that  it  was  unnecessary,  since  the  offense 
was  one  which  never  had  existed  and  never  would  exist  in 
Ohio;  that  it  would  do  a  positive  injury,  since  its  passage 
would  create  an  inference  in  the  slave  states  that  there  was 
a  tendency  among  the  citizens  of  Ohio  to  set  on  foot  hostile 
expeditions  against  their  territory;  and  that  in  view  of  the 
aggressions  of  slavery  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  of 
Ohio  and  the  other  free  states,  it  would  be  time  enough 
to  pass  such  laws  when  the  legislatures  of  the  southern 
states  should  manifest  a  disposition  to  repair  the  wrongs 
which  were  being  inflicted  daily  upon  the  persons  and  prop- 

1  Senate  Journal,  1860,  p.  n.  2  /did.,  App.,  p.  227. 


38  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

erty  of  the  people  of  Ohio.1  A  strenuous  debate  which 
brought  out  the  wide  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Re 
serve  and  the  southern  portion  of  the  state,  occupied  the 
time  of  the  Senate  for  some  days,  but  the  conservatives 
combined  with  the  Democrats  were  not  quite  strong  enough 
to  command  a  majority,  and  on  February  8th  the  bill  was 
postponed  indefinitely  by  vote  of  eighteen  to  fifteen.  A  few 
days  later  it  was  introduced  in  the  'House,  and  after  some 
discussion,  action  was  postponed  on  the  last  day  of  the 
session  until  the  following  January.2  When  during  the 
next  session  it  was  reached,  the  excitement  had  passed,  and 
the  bill  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  Federal  relations 
from  which  it  was  never  reported.8 

At  the  same  time  the  legislature  was  wrestling  with  this 
problem,  another  matter  came  up.  Owen  Brown,  a  son 
of  John  Brown,  and  Francis  Merriam  were  indicted  at 
Charlestown,  Virginia,  for  treason,  murder  and  inciting 
slaves  to  insurrection,  and  both  being  in  Ohio  at  the  time, 
a  requisition  was  made  by  Governor  Letcher  on  the  Ohio 
executive  February  27th  for  their  delivery.  Dennison  re 
fused  to  issue  warrants  for  their  arrest  and  delivery  on  the 
ground  that  no  sufficient  case  was  presented  against  them. 
The  reasons  for  his  conclusion  were  set  forth  in  an  opinion 
of  the  attorney  general  of  the  state.  They  were,  that  since 
there  was  no  state  law  on  the  subject  of  extradition  the 
United  States  Constitution  and  the  law  of  1793  must  be  the 
guide,  and  in  these  were  found  three  provisions  which  bore 
on  the  case:  (i)the  person  must  have  been  charged  in 
another  state  by  indictment  or  affidavit  with  the  commission 
there  of  "treason,  felony  or  other  crime";  (2)  he  must 
have  fled  from  that  state  to  escape  its  justice;  and  (3)  de- 

1  Senate  Journal,  1860,  App.,  p.  230.     Also  Senate  Journal,  p.  147. 
*  House  Journal,  1860,  pp.  263  and  560. 
*Ibid.,  1861,  p.  33. 


J75]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  39 

mand  for  surrender  accompanied  by  an  authentic  copy  O'f 
the  indictment  or  affidavit  must  have  been  made  by  the 
executive  authority  of  the  state  from  which  the  flight  was 
made.  The  conclusion  was,  that  since  actual  flight  must 
be  proved  and  no  evidence  of  such  had  been  furnished,  this 
one  barrier  was  sufficient  to  show  that  the  case  did  not 
warrant  extradition.1 

Governor  Letcher,  in  presenting  the  matter  to  his  legis 
lature,  March  i4th,  a  few  days  before  the  Hutcheson  reso 
lutions  were  transmitted,  ridiculed  the  reasons  for  refusal, 
and  cited  an  instance  of  a  requisition  of  the  Ohio  governor 
on  him  which  was  identical  in  form  with  his  own.  He 
concluded  his  comment  on  the  matter  by  saying: 

If  such  is  to  be  the  policy  of  the  non-slaveholding  States,  we 
must  adopt  such  measures  for  protection  against  these  gross 
outrages  upon  our  rights  as  will  be  suited  to  the  case.  We 
must  adopt  retaliatory  measures,  and  thus  show  them  that  we 
are  determined  to  resist,  with  becoming  spirit,  every  encroach 
ment  upon  us  and  every  refusal  to  comply  with  constitutional 
obligations  and  laws  intended  for  our  protection.2 

Feeling  in  regard  to  the  affair  ran  high  in  the  state.  The 
Democratic  press  rated  Dennison  as  a  tool  of  the  Oberlin 
school  of  politicians.  The  Cincinnati  Enquirer  was  especi 
ally  denunciatory  in  its  comments  and  held  that  in  the  gov 
ernor's  action,  he  had  made  a  raid  on  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  land  less  defensible  and  more  dangerous  than 
that  of  John  Brown  himself.  3  A  "  sympathy  meeting  ", 
attended  by  both  Brown  and  Merriam,  was  held  at  Jefferson, 
the  home  of  Giddings  in  the  Reserve.  In  the  legislature, 

1The  correspondence  between  the  governors  is  given  in  the  Cincin 
nati  Commercial  for  March  14,  1860.  Cf.  also  Ohio  Statesman,  March 
nth. 

2  Ohio  Statesman,  March  22,  1860.  s  Editorial,  April  igth. 


4o  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [176 

a  resolution  was  introduced  by  Hutcheson  calling  on  the 
governor  to  lay  before  that  body  the  papers  in  the  case,  but 
no  action  was  taken  on  it.1 

A  few  days  after  this  correspondence,  a  requisition  came 
from  Governor  Magoffin  of  Kentucky  for  one  Lago, 
charged  with  the  crime  of  having  enticed  a  slave  away  from 
her  master  and  assisted  her  in  an  attempt  to  escape.  Den- 
nison,  in  this  case  also,  refused  to  surrender  the  person,  and 
sent  an  opinion  of  his  attorney-general  which  held  that  all 
the  proceedings  were  in  due  form  if  the  alleged  offense 
could  be  considered  as  either  "  treason,  felony  or  other 
crime  " ; 2  but  maintained  that  it  did  not  rank  among  those 
offenses  upon  which  the  constitutional  provision  was  in 
tended  to  operate.  It  was  not  a  crime  by  the  common  law 
as  it  stood  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  nor  was  it 
regarded  as  a  crime  by  the  usages  and  laws  of  civilized 
nations.  Hence  the  governor  had  no  authority  to  comply 
with  the  requisition.  In  his  reply,  Governor  Magoffin  held 
that  many  things  were  now  crimes  which  were  not  by  the 
common  law  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  and 
that  since  the  offense  of  assisting  a  slave  to  escape  was  a 
crime  in  Kentucky  if  not  in  Ohio,  by  the  reasoning  of  Gov 
ernor  Dennison  the  laws  of  one  state  might  be  annulled  by 
another.  As  to  the  opinion  of  the  attorney-general,  Magof 
fin  said  that  such  ideas  were  not  in  vogue  when  Kentucky 
came  up  to  help  Ohio  against  the  British  invaders,  and  re 
minded  the  Ohio  executive  of  his  speech  made  on  the  occa 
sion  of  the  visit  of  the  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  legislatures, 
in  which  he  said  that  Ohio  wanted  no  special  privileges 
under  the  Constitution.3 

1  House  Journal,  1860,  p.  392. 
2U.  S.  Constitution,  art.  iv,  sec.  2. 
*Ohio  Statesman,  June  ipth. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  4I 

On  this  refusal  to  honor  the  requisition,  Governor  Ma- 
goffin,  on  behalf  of  his  state,  applied  to  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  for  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  sur 
render  of  the  fugitive.  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
court  on  this  request,  Chief  Justice  Taney  held  that  the 
word  "  crime  "  was  intended  to  include  every  offense  made 
punishable  by  the  laws  of  the  state  in  which  it  was  com 
mitted,  and  that  the  constitutional  right  to  demand  a  fugi 
tive  implied  the  corresponding  obligation  to  deliver  with 
out  any  reference  to  the  character  of  the  crime  charged  or 
to  the  policy  or  laws  of  the  state  from  which  the  fugitive 
had  fled.  But  since  neither  the  Constitution,  nor  the  law 
of  1793  enacted  to  carry  out  its  provisions,  provided  any 
means  to  compel  a  state  executive  to  do  his  duty  in  this 
regard  or  to  inflict  any  punishment  for  his  neglect  or  re 
fusal,  the  duty  must  be  considered  only  a  moral  one.  Hence 
the  conclusion  was  that  "  if  the  Governor  of  Ohio  refuses 
to  discharge  this  duty,  there  is  no  power  delegated  to  the 
General  Government  either  through  the  Judicial  Depart 
ment  or  any  other  Department  to  use  any  coercive  means 
to  compel  him."  * 

A  third  case  arose  in  regard  to  one  Kennedy,  who  stole 
some  negroes  in  Tennessee,  took  them  to  Virginia,  sold 
them,  and  then  fled  into  Ohio.  The  governor  again  re 
fused  to  honor  a  requisition,  on  the  ground  that  as  slaves 
were  not  recognized  as  property  in  Ohio,  it  could  be  no 
crime  to  steal  them.2 

By  thus  refusing  to  extradite  a  person  for  an  offense 
which  was  not  a  crime  in  Ohio,  Governor  Dennison  would 
not  only  protect  those  who,  because  of  their  belief  in  the 
"  higher  law  "  of  freedom,  were  instrumental  in  aiding 

1  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  Reports,  24  Howard,  p.  66.     The  opinion  was 
not  delivered  until  March,  1861.     Cf.  infra,  p.  69. 

2  Ohio  Statesman,  May  3ist. 


42  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

slaves  to  escape,  but  would  also  make  Ohio  the  refuge  of 
those  who  like  Kennedy  had  only  criminal  motives.  Party 
feeling,  already  high,  was  intensified  by  this  action,  and 
party  lines  were  more  sharply  drawn  not  only  between  the 
two  parties,  but  also  between  the  radicals  and  conservatives 
of  the  Republican  party.  The  radicals  controlled  the  execu 
tive  and  judical  departments  and  the  upper  branch  of  the 
legislature,  while  the  conservatives  held  the  balance  of  power 
in  the  lower  branch.  The  Assembly  had  adjourned  just 
about  the  time  the  first  request  for  extradition  was  made, 
and  hence  took  no  action  on  the  matter,  but  in  the  politics 
of  the  year  the  issue  was  joined  on  the  radical  doctrines. 

PARTY  CONVENTIONS  AND  CAMPAIGN  OF   i860 

The  first  convention  of  the  year  1860  was  held  by  the 
Democrats  on  January  5th,  to  select  delegates  to  the  na 
tional  convention.  The  resolutions  as  adopted  expressed 
approval  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  of  1856,  endorsed 
Douglas  for  the  Presidency,  declared  for  the  non-interven 
tion  of  Congress  in  reference  to  slavery  in  the  states  and 
territories,  and  called  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  for  the 
suppression  of  the  African  slave  trade  and  the  rendition  of 
fugitive  slaves.  The  vote  on  the  Douglas  resolution  was 
taken  by  counties  and  carried,  two  hundred  and  forty-two 
to  ninety-four,  the  opposition  coming  mostly  from  the 
southern  counties.  In  the  committee  on  resolutions  an  at 
tempt  was  made  to  insert  a  plank  endorsing  the  administra 
tion  of  President  Buchanan,  but  it  was  lost,  seven  to  four 
teen.  The  Buchanan  men  then  offered  their  resolution  in 
open  convention.  A  compromise  substitute  was  finally  ac 
cepted,  which  endorsed  the  administration  in  certain  spe 
cific  things,  such  as  the  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  with 
Great  Britain  in  regard  to  the  right  of  search,  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  neutrality  laws,  and  the  impartial  execution  of 


179]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  43 

the  acts  of  Congress  for  the  suppression  of  the  African 
slave  trade  and  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  In 
choosing  delegates-at-large,  the  nominees  were  all  made  to 
pledge  support  to  Douglas.  A  selection  was  made  as  fol 
lows:  George  E.  Pugh,  whose  term  in  the  Senate  was  just 
about  to  expire;  D.  P.  Rhodes,  a  cousin  of  Douglas;  George 
W.  McCook,  once  attorney- general  of  the  state;  and  H.  J. 
Jewett,  a  former  United  States  district  attorney.  The 
district  delegates  included  David  Tod,  who  was  destined  to 
be  the  next  governor  of  the  state,  and  H.  B.  Payne  of  Cleve 
land,  who  was  to  be  prominent  in  Democratic  politics  during 
the  war  period.1  This  delegation  stood  solidly  for  Douglas 
in  the  Charleston  convention,  and  on  the  re-assembling  of 
the  delegates  at  Baltimore,  Tod  was  made  the  presiding 
officer.2 

The  Republican  convention,  held  on  March  ist,  adopted 
a  resolution  recommending  Chase  for  the  Presidency,  by 
vote  of  three  hundred  and  eighty-three  to  sixty-nine.  Sixty- 
five  of  the  counties  voted  solidly  for  it  while  seventeen, 
mostly  in  the  southern  quarter  of  the  state,  were  divided, 
and  Highland,  Madison  and  Tuscarawas  voted  unanimously 
against  it.  As  delegates-at-large,  Valentine  B.  Horton  of 
Meigs,  a  conservative,  Conrad  Brodbeck  of  Montgomery, 
a  German  Socialist,  David  K.  Cartter  of  Cuyahoga,  a  radi 
cal,  and  Thomas  Spooner  of  Hamilton,  a  recruit  from  the 
Know-Nothing  ranks,  were  chosen.3 

Shortly  before  the  national  convention  met,  a  movement 
was  begun  to  secure  the  nomination  of  Wade  for  the  Presi 
dency.  The  possibility  of  accomplishing  this  led  many  of 
the  party  leaders  to  his  standard  because  of  their  aspirations 

Account  of  the  Convention  in  Ohio  Statesman,  January  6th. 
2Stanwood,f//zs&?rx  of  the  Presidency,  p.  286. 
8  Ohio  State  Journal,  March  2d. 


44  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

to  succeed  him  in  the  Senate.  John  H.  Geiger,  Governor 
Dennison,  Thomas  Corwin  and  Columbus  Delano  identified 
themselves  with  this  movement.  Thus  there  was  a  split 
in  the  Ohio  delegation  in  the  convention,  and  this  left  the 
party  divided  throughout  the  war  period  into  Wade  and 
Chase  factions. 

During  the  summer,  all  of  the  parties  represented  in  the 
national  campaign  held  state  conventions  in  Ohio.  The  Re 
publican  convention,  held  on  June  I3th,  was  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  radicals.  The  Chicago  platform  and  nominee 
were  endorsed,  and  through  the  efforts  of  the  Giddings 
forces,  a  plank  was  added  reaffirming  the  declaration  of 
principles  adopted  in  the  state  convention  of  the  preceding 
year.  To  head  the  ticket,  Judge  Brinkerhoff,  one  of  the 
minority  of  the  Supreme  Court  who  held  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law  unconstitutional,  was  renominated.1 

The  Democratic  convention,  July  4th,  was  dominated  by 
the  Douglas  supporters.  McCook,  Vallandigham,  then 
representing  the  Dayton  district  in  Congress,  Jewett  and 
Payne  were  prominent,  the  first  presiding  over  the  sessions, 
and  the  others  serving  on  the  committee  on  resolutions. 
The  platform  accepted  the  issue  "  tendered  by  the  Republi 
can  party  in  the  renomination  of  Judge  Brinkerhoff,  of  the 
nullification  or  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law," 
condemned  the  "  irrepressible  conflict "  doctrine,  declared 
against  negro  suffrage,  denounced  the  John  Brown  raid  and 
endorsed  Douglas  and  Johnson.  The  proposal  of  a  resolu 
tion  by  L.  W.  Hall,  an  ex-member  of  Congress  from  Craw 
ford  county,  declaring  the  opinion  of  the  convention  to  be 
that  every  Democrat  in  Ohio  should  be  at  liberty  to  vote 
for  either  Breckinridge  and  Lane,  or  Douglas  and  Johnson, 
raised  much  confusion,  and  after  the  Breckinridge  men 

lOhio  State  Journal,   June  I4th.     The  Ohio  State  Journal  was  the 
official  organ  of  the  party. 


igi]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  45 

had  been  denounced  as  disorganizes,  Hall  and  his  friends 
withdrew  from  the  convention.  There  was  some  talk  of 
nominating  Judge  Swan  to  head  the  ticket  against  Brinker- 
hoff,  but  the  proposition  did  not  meet  with  favor,  and  his 
name  was  not  presented.  Thomas  J.  Smith  of  Dayton  was 
nominated.1 

When  the  Breckinridge  men  left  the  convention,  they 
held  a  separate  meeting  under  the  leadership  of  several  of 
the  Federal  office  holders,  and  effected  an  organization.  An 
executive  committee  was  selected,  with  instructions  to  pre 
pare  an  address  to  the  Democracy  of  the  state,  and  to  call 
a  state  convention.  Meetings  were  held  in  several  sections 
of  the  state  during  July.  In  due  time  the  address  ap 
peared,  asserting  that  every  Democrat  should  be  at  perfect 
liberty  to  chose  between  the  Breckinridge  and  Douglas 
tickets,  and  contrasting  the  doctrines  of  the  two  factions. 
In  the  call,  August  7th  was  fixed  upon  as  the  date  for  hold 
ing  the  state  convention.  Local  organizations  were  ef 
fected,  so  that  when  the  delegates  assembled  almost  every 
county  was  represented.  The  platform  pledged  support  to 
Breckinridge  and  Lane,  reaffirmed  the  declaration  of  the 
Ohio  convention  of  1857  endorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
approved  the  administration  of  Buchanan  in  everything 
"  except  in  the  retention  in  office  of  men  who  wage  an  open 
and  undisguised  war  upon  the  President  and  all  who  sup 
port  his  administration,"  and  maintained  that  the  people  of 
Ohio  should  "  cease  their  aggression  upon  the  people  of 
the  slave  holding  States,  and  repeal  all  hostile  and  uncon 
stitutional  laws  on  the  statute  books  of  Ohio  against 
them."  It  had  been  agreed  by  the  leaders  beforehand  to 
nominate  a  full  state  ticket,  but  this  was  abandoned  owing 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  July  5th.     This  paper,  edited  by  Geo.  W.  Many- 
penny  at  Columbus,  was  the  official  organ  of  the  Douglas  party. 


46  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

to  vigorous  protests  from  the  editors  of  the  rural  papers, 
who  claimed  not  only  that  they  would  be  ruined  through  the 
falling-off  of  advertising,  but  that  it  would  defeat  the  Demo 
cratic  candidates  in  every  county  in  the  state.1 

In  a  few  counties  Breckinridge  tickets  were  put  in  the 
field,  and  in  three  congressional  districts  candidates  were 
nominated.  In  the  sixth  district,  the  Douglas  men  were 
defeated  in  the  convention  and  a  Breckinridge  man  was 
nominated.  In  the  ninth  and  twelfth  districts,  third  candi 
dates  were  nominated.2 

The  Constitutional  Unionists  were  also  organized  in  the 
state,  the  movement  having  its  stimulus  and  direction  in 
Cincinnati,  where  the  first  meeting  was  held  on  April  5th. 
A  resolution  was  adopted  at  that  time  calling  on  the  con 
servative  men  of  all  parties  to  meet  at  Columbus  on  the 
1 8th  of  that  month  to  select  delegates  to  the  national  con 
vention.  In  accordance  with  this  call,  about  twenty  dele 
gates  assembled  and  endorsed  Bell  and  John  McLean.  On 
July  1 9th  a  large  Bell  and  Everett  ratification  meeting  was 
held  at  Cincinnati,  at  which  the  principal  speakers  were 
Lewis  D.  Campbell  and  John  Scott  Harrison,  both  old-line 
Whigs.  Resolutions  were  adopted  pledging  support  to  the 
candidates  and  opposing  any  alliance  with  any  other  party. 
A  mass  convention  was  recommended  to  meet  at  Chillicothe 
on  August  1 6th.  A  local  organization  was  effected  and  a 
county  committee  named.  On  August  7th,  a  county  con 
vention  was  held  at  which  were  selected  a  full  county  ticket 

1  Cleveland  National  Democrat,  August  loth.     This  paper  was  estab 
lished  at  Cleveland  by  the  leaders  of   the   Breckinridge   faction    and 
Charles  B.  Flood,  formerly  of  the  Ohio  Statesman,  was  put  in  charge. 

2  The  Sixth  District  was  composed  of  Adams,  Brown,  Clermont  and 
Highland  counties;    the  Ninth   was  composed  of    Ottawa,   Sandusky, 
Seneca,  Wyandot,   Crawford,    Marion  and  Hardin  counties;  and  the 
Twelfth,  of  Franklin,  Licking  and  Pickaway  counties. 


183]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  47 

and  a  congressional  ticket  for  the  two  districts  of  Hamilton 
county.1 

In  pursuance  of  the  recommendation,  a  call  signed  by 
fourteen  names  was  issued.  When  the  convention  assem 
bled  at  Chillicothe,  it  numbered  about  two  hundred  delegates 
under  the  leadership  of  Harrison,  Campbell,  ex-Governor 
Allen  Trimble,  Van  Trump  and  Vallandigham.  The  first 
two  of  these,  as  already  noted,  were  old-line  Whigs;  the 
next  two  were  from  the  Know-Nothing  ranks;  while  Val 
landigham  was  present  to  prevent  the  nomination  of  a  can 
didate  for  supreme  judge,  so  that  the  party  could  combine 
with  the  Democrats  against  Brinkerhoff.  A  committee 
named  for  the  purpose  recommended  the  endorsement  of 
Bell  and  Everett,  and  the  adoption  of  the  platform :  "  The 
Union,  the  Constitution  and  the  Enforcement  of  the  Laws," 
It  also  condemned  the  conduct  of  the  Republican  party  in 
Ohio  in  its  effort  to  nullify  the  laws  through  the  agency 
of  the  Supreme  Court;  declared  that  the  repudiation  of 
Judge  Swan  and  the  renomination  of  Judge  Brinkerhofl 
merited  the  rebuke  of  a  law-abiding  people;  and  recom 
mended  that  no  candidate  for  supreme  judge  be  nominated, 
but  that  every  conservative  Union  man  so  vote  as  to  secure 
the  defeat  of  the  Republican  candidate.  This  report  was 
adopted,  and  a  state  ticket  and  Presidential  electors 
nominated.2 

In  addition  to  that  of  Hamilton  county,  there  were  a  few 
other  local  tickets  put  in  the  field  by  this  party.  In  four 
congressional  districts,  the  first,  second,  third  and  seven 
teenth,3  candidates  were  nominated. 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  July  21  st  and  August  8th. 

^Ibid.,  August  i  ;th. 

'Hamilton  county  made  up  the  ist  and  2d  districts,  Butler,  Mont 
gomery  and  Preble  the  3d,  and  Guernsey,  Belmont,  Noble  and  Mon 
roe  the  1 7th. 


48  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

The  campaign  was  waged  naturally  on  national  issues, 
the  contest  over  the  supreme  judgeship  being  the  only  local 
one  of  importance.  There  was  a  tendency  for  the  Bell  and 
Douglas  men,  and  the  Breckinridge  and  Lincoln  men  to 
unite,  the  Republicans  urging  on  the  Breckinridge  faction 
in  order  to  weaken  the  Democrats  through  the  division  of 
the  party.  •  The  press  of  the  state  divided  among  the  various 
candidates,  the  majority  of  the  papers  supporting  Lincoln.1 
A  conspicuous  feature  of  the  parades  were  the  Lincoln 
"  Wideawakes/'  young  men  throughout  the  state  uniformed 
and  drilled  for  assisting  in  all  the  Republican  demonstrations. 

At  the  state  election  in  October  the  total  vote  cast  for 
supreme  judge  was  412,716,  an  increase  of  56,893  over 
that  cast  for  governor  in  the  preceding  year.  Brinker- 
hofFs  majority  was  12,992,  while  that  of  the  other  candi 
dates  on  the  Republican  ticket  was  almost  twice  as  large. 
In  the  congressional  elections,  the  Republicans  had  a  plural 
ity  of  33,633,  yet  the  Democrats  gained  four  districts.  In 
the  four  districts  in  which  the  Constitutional  Unionists  had 
their  own  candidates,  they  polled  6,268  votes,  the  highest 
number  in  any  district  being  2,642  in  the  first.  On  the 
state  ticket  they  polled  8,653  votes. 

After  the  October  election,  a  proposal  was  made  to  com 
bine  the  Douglas  and  Bell  men  of  the  state  on  one  electoral 
ticket.  The  Cincinnati  Enquirer  favored  the  idea,  while 
the  Ohio  Statesman  opposed  it.  A  meeting  of  the  com 
mittees  and  electors  of  both  parties  was  called  for  October 
23d,  but  only  six  members  of  the  Douglas  committee  and 
five  Douglas  electors  attended,  so  the  matter  was  carried 
no  further. 

In  the  national  election  in  November,  the  total  vote  was 

'Of  the  papers  of  the  state,  126  supported  Lincoln,  80  supported 
Douglas,  8  supported  Breckinridge  and  2  supported  Bell.  Ohio  State 
Journal,  July  23d. 


POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR 


49 


442,936:  of  which  Lincoln  received  231,809;  Douglas,  187,- 
421;  Bell,  12,194;  Breckinridge,  11,403;  and  Gerritt 
Smith,  the  candidate  of  the  extreme  Abolitionists,  136. 
The  heaviest  vote  for  Breckinridge  came  from  the  north 
eastern  part  of  the  state.  Of  twenty-seven  counties  that 
gave  him  over  100  votes  each,  only  nine  were  south  of  the 
national  road.  The  Constitutional  Union  vote  was  strong 
in  the  southern  portion  of  the  state,  where  the  old  "  Silver 
Greys  ",  or  pro-slavery  Whigs^  to  some  extent  cast  their 
ballots  for  this  ticket.  North  of  the  national  road  only 
four  counties  gave  Bell  over  100  votes,  while  south  of  that 
line  only  eight  did  not  give  this  number  and  five  gave  over 
300.  Lincoln  carried  fifty-nine  of  the  eighty-eight  coun 
ties,  an  increase  of  twelve  over  the  number  carried  by  the 
Republicans  in  the  election  of  the  preceding  year. 

ATTITUDE   OF   OHIO   ON   SECESSION   AND   COMPROMISE 

The  election  over,  Ohio  was  called  upon,  together  with 
the  other  members  of  the  Union,  to  consider  the  question 
of  actual  secession,  which  was  precipitated  by  the  adoption 
of  the  South  Carolina  ordinance  in  December.  The  situa 
tion  gave  rise  to  three  lines  of  opinion  among  the  Repub 
licans  throughout  the  North.  There  were,  first,  those  who 
held  that  since  the  decision  at  the  polls  had  been  reached 
in  a  constitutional  manner,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  South 
to  submit  to  it.  Secondly,  there  were  those  led  by  Horace 
Greeley  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  who  were  willing  to 
recognize  the  right  of  secession  and  allow  the  southern 
states  to  go  in  peace.  Finally,  many  thought  that  a  fair 
compromise  might  again  be  made  between  the  two  sec 
tions  as  had  been  done  in  1820  and  I85O.1  During  the 
session  of  Congress  beginning  on  December  3d,  various 

'Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  138  et  seq. 


50  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

schemes  of  compromise  were  proposed,  the  most  widely 
discussed  being  that  of  Senator  Crittenden  of  Kentucky. 
He  would  prohibit  slavery  in  all  territory  of  the  United 
States  held  or  to  be  acquired  north  of  latitude  36°  30', 
and  protect  it  in  all  territory  south  of  this  line.  States 
should  be  admitted,  north  or  south,  either  with  or  without 
slavery  as  their  constitutions  might  provide.  He  would 
secure  to  the  slaveholders  ample  protection  for  their  prop 
erty,  and  forbid  any  amendment  to  the  national  constitu 
tion  which  would  give  Congress  power  to  interfere  with 
slavery  in  any  state  in  which  it  was  a  lawful  institution.1  In 
the  Senate,  a  Committee  of  Thirteen  was  selected  to  con 
sider  the  grievances  between  the  two  sections  and  if  possible 
suggest  a  remedy,  while  the  House  provided  a  similar  one 
of  Thirty-three,  one  from  each  state,  for  the  same  purpose. 

While  Congress  was  wrestling  with  the  problem  during 
the  winter  and  spring,  the  Republicans  in  Ohio  were  en 
gaged  in  a  strenuous  effort  to  find  some  common  ground 
upon  which  the  widely  divergent  elements  of  the  party 
could  unite.  At  first,  the  prevailing  opinion  seemed  to  favor 
peaceable  secession.  This  was  strongly  endorsed  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  state,  because  of  the  disturbances  to 
commercial  intercourse  with  the  South  which  any  plan  of 
forcible  coercion  would  involve.  It  was  acceptable  to  the 
Abolitionists  of  the  Reserve,  because  by  it  the  unnatural 
alliance  with  slavery,  against  which  their  leaders  had  long 
protested,  would  be  dissolved. 

Among  the  Republican  papers  of  the  state,  the  Ohio  State 
Journal,  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  and  the  Cincinnati 
Press  were  strong  advocates  of  this  plan  of  adjusting  the 
difficulty.  The  first  of  these  began  a  series  of  editorials  on 
the  subject  on  November  I3th,  when  it  argued  against  the 

1McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  64. 


187]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  51 

coercion  of  any  state  to  remain  in  the  Union,  on  the  ground 
that  such  action  must  inaugurate  civil  war.  Four  days 
later,  it  suggested  the  expulsion  of  South  Carolina,  be 
cause  by  doing  so  a  wholesome  terror  could  be  struck  into 
the  secessionists  of  other  states  and  a  far  more  permanent 
influence  for  good  be  exerted  than  by  compelling  her  to 
remain  in  the  Union.  On  November  28th  a  plan  was  out 
lined  which  a  state  should  follow  in  seceding.  It  should 
first  make  known  its  desire,  either  by  petition  or  a  formal 
application  to  Congress  for  dismissal,  through  the  medium 
of  a  state  convention  representing  a  majority  of  the  people, 
or  through  its  Senators  and  Representatives.  It  would  then 
lie  within  the  discretion  of  Congress  to  submit  this  applica 
tion  to  the  people  of  the  other  states,  with  whom  would  rest 
the  responsibility  of  its  acceptance  or  rejection.  As  late  as 
March  27,  1861,  this  paper  argued  that  the  Union,  no 
longer  rilling  the  needs  of  the  times,  was  about  to  be  cast 
aside;  that  separate,  peaceful  existence  of  the  sections  was 
preferable  to  a  Union  which  was  unsatisfactory  to  one  and 
retarded  the  progress  of  the  other. 

On  January  3ist,  the  Commercial  published  an  editorial, 
the  authorship  of  which  was  ascribed  to  Chase,  in  which  it 
was  maintained  that  the  unanimity  of  the  people  of  the 
North  for  the  preservation  of  the  Federal  Union  existed 
no  longer;  that  a  revolution  in  public  sentiment  had  been 
accomplished  within  the  past  sixty  days,  caused  by  the 
almost  universal  endorsement  given  by  the  border  states 
to  the  inadmissible  demands  of  the  cotton  states  coupled 
with  menaces  of  disunion.  It  held  the  Crittenden  compro 
mise  an  impossibility.  "  Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln 
cannot  consent  that  his  election  shall  be  made  the  pretext 
for  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution  so  as  to  defeat  the 
very  purpose  they  had  in  voting  for  him."  Warning  the 
southerners  that  the  Union  could  not  be  constructed  on  any 


52  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [188 

basis  they  might  dictate,  it  was  in  favor  of  calling  a  con 
vention  of  all  the  states  to  release  the  disaffected  members 
and  give  peaceable  secession  a  fair  trial.1 

The  Press  placed  its  argument  for  secession  on  economic 
grounds,  holding  that  if  a  small  body  of  southern  politicians 
could  apparently,  whenever  it  suited  their  convenience, 
throw  the  industrial  system  of  the  entire  Union  into  con 
vulsions  and  thus  bring  about  national  bankruptcy,  it  would 
be  better  for  both  sides  to  agree  to  an  amicable  severance, 
rather  than  continue  together  with  the  elements  of  an  eter 
nal  dispute  at  work.  It  thought  the  trade  of  Cincinnati 
with  the  South  would  greatly  increase  after  separation.2 

The  abolition  organ  of  Giddings  on  the  Reserve,  the 
Ashtabula  Sentinel,  rejoiced  that  the  feeling  in  favor  of 
separation  was  increasing.  Its  editor,  W.  C.  Howells,  writ 
ing  to  his  paper  from  Columbus,  February  6th,  said  that  the 
opinion  was  almost  universal  that  there  was  to  be  a  division 
of  the  Union,  and  that  public  opinion  was  adapting  itself 
to  the  idea.  In  another  letter  a  week  later,  in  commenting 
on  the  attitude  of  the  Cincinnati  papers,  he  said : 

It  is  really  surprising  now  to  see  how  generally  the  public  and 
private  expression  of  the  people  of  the  border  is  in  favor  of 
peaceable  separation.  Its  entire  practicability  is  demonstrated 
to  a  large  portion  of  the  thinkers  of  the  country,  while  the 
idea  of  coercing  or  fighting  them  to  make  them  stay  in,  is 
looked  upon  as  ridiculous. 

The  Democrats  of  the  state,  following  the  opinion  of 
President  Buchanan,  held  that  while  a  state  could  not  be 
coerced,  it  could  not  secede  from  the  Union;  that  the  two 
sections  could  not  exist  separately  and  that  the  Abolition 
ists,  rather  than  the  southern  leaders,  were  responsible  for 

1  Cf.  also  editorial  of  February  ist  for  a  similar  expression. 

2  Editorials,  January  5th  and  February  4th,  1861. 


189]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  53 

the  trouble.  The  first  official  action  on  the  matter  was 
taken  in  a  convention  held  in  January  for  the  purpose-  of 
reconstructing  the  party.  It  had  been  suggested  late  in  the 
year  that  the  Breckinridge  Democrats  meet  in  convention  on 
January  8th  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  state  ticket, 
but  the  idea  was  abandoned  in  the  hope  that  concessions, 
such  as  would  preserve  the  Constitution  and  the  Union, 
would  be  made  on  all  sides  and  thus  render  separate  political 
action  unnecessary.  This  decision  was  followed  by  a  call 
issued  by  the  Douglas  central  committee,  for  the  Democracy 
to  meet  on  January  23d,  "  for  the  purpose  of  consulting  to 
gether  on  the  alarming  condition  of  the  country,  as  well  as 
to  adopt  such  a  line  of  policy  as  they  may  deem  best  for  the 
perpetuity  of  our  Government  and  the  prosperity  of  our 
people."  An  invitation  to  attend  was  extended  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  Democracy  without  distinction  of  faction. 

The  real  object  of  the  convention  was  made  apparent  in 
its  proceedings.  The  factions  of  the  party  were  to  be 
united  on  the  platform  of  a  compromise  with  the  South, 
and  that  issue  was  to  be  forced  on  the  Republicans.  The 
proposition  of  the  Border  State  committee,1  which  was  simi 
lar  in  its  essential  features  to  the  Crittenden  compromise, 
had  just  been  announced,  and  it  was  made  the  basis  of  the 
discussions.  Jewett,  in  his  speech  as  presiding  officer,  held 
it  to  be  a  measure  that  sacrificed  no  principle,  and  de 
clared  with  much  earnestness  that  if  Congress  and  the  state 
legislatures  refused  to  submit  it  to  the  people,  the  Republi 
cans  must  fight  the  battles  themselves.  He  would  never 
consent  to  meet  his  fellow  countrymen  in  arms.  The  reso 
lutions  adopted,  credited  the  Democrats  of  Ohio  with  hav 
ing  "  uniformly  shown  devotion  to  the  Union,  allegiance  to 
the  Constitution,  obedience  to  the  Federal  laws  and  regard 

1McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  73. 


54  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [IOx> 

for  the  interests  of  their  sister  States,"  and  while  they 
would  accept  with  joy  the  Crittenden  compromise  or  the 
Border  State  proposition  or  any  other  settlement  honorable 
to  all,  which  could  be  effected  by  conciliation  and  com 
promise,  yet  they  believed  that  the  questions  which  were 
disturbing  the  country  were  of  such  a  character  that  a 
national  convention  should  be  called  to  propose  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  General  Assembly 
should  be  memorialized  to  make  application  to  Congress  to 
call  such  a  convention.  The  most  conspicuous  of  the  re 
solutions  was  the  last,  which  recited 

that  the  two  hundred  thousand  Democrats  of  Ohio  send  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  both  North  and  South,  greet 
ing  ;  and  when  the  people  of  the  North  shall  have  fulfilled  their 
duties  to  the  Constitution  and  the  South,  then — and  not  until 
then — will  it  be  proper  for  them  to  take  into  consideration  the 
question  of  the  right  and  propriety  of  coercion. 

This  resolution  was  the  cause  of  much  discussion  in  the 
convention.  As  originally  reported  by  the  committee,  the 
last  part  read : 

then,  and  not  until  then,  will  it  be  proper  for  them  to  take  into 
consideration  the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  coercion  of  a 
State;  and  then,  and  not  until  then,  should  they  attempt  to 
put  down  the  alleged  right  of  secession  by  the  alleged  right  of 
coercion. 

The  conservative  element  in  the  convention  opposed  this 
form  because  it  would  commit  the  party  to  the  right  of 
secession  and  against  the  right  of  the  government  to  en 
force  the  law.  After  a  spirited  debate,  the  resolution  was 
modified  as  adopted.  Even  so,  it  was  violently  attacked  in 
several  of  the  Douglas  papers,  the  editors  declaring  that  the 
party  had  been  sold  out  to  the  Breckinridge  faction,  and 


I9i]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  55 

some  refusing  to  endorse  the  work  of  the  convention.  The 
party  leaders,  however,  defended  the  resolution;  even  Tod, 
who  was  soon  to  head  the  new  Union  ticket,  declared  that 
if  the  Republicans  attempted  to  cross  the  Ohio  for  the  pur 
pose  of  coercing  the  South,  they  would  find  the  two  hun 
dred  thousand  Democrats  in  front  of  them.1  . 

With  the  adoption  of  this  platform,  the  separate  exist- 
of  the  Breckinridge  wing  of  the  party  in  Ohio  came  to  an 
end,  and  its  organ,  the  Cleveland  National  Democrat,  sus 
pended  publication.  The  issue  as  drawn  was  that  of  com 
promise  with  the  South,  and  on  this  the  party  as  an  or 
ganization  stood  consistently  throughout  the  war  period. 

While  the  Democracy  of  the  state  thus  formulated  its 
platform  in  convention,  that  of  the  Republicans  was  to  be 
the  subject  of  a  strenuous  discussion  in  the  adjourned  ses 
sion  of  the  legislature  which  convened  on  January  7th. 
By  that  time  the  doctrine  of  peaceable  secession  was  losing 
ground  and  the  question  of  compromise  was  uppermost. 
In  Congress  the  Senate  Committee  of  Thirteen,  to  which 
the  Crittenden  propositions  had  been  referred,  had  already 
reported  its  failure  to  agree  upon  it  or  any  other  plan  of 
adjustment,  while  the  House  Committee  of  Thirty-three  was 
still  at  work.  The  conservative  members  of  both  branches 
were  urging  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  southern  griev 
ances,  and  in  the  House  they  were  able  to  secure  the  passage 
on  December  I7th  of  a  resolution  earnestly  requesting  the 
repeal  of  the  Personal  Liberty  laws.  A  few  days  later  a 
caucus  of  seven  governors,  including  Governor  Dennison, 
was  held  at  New  York  City  at  which  they  agreed  to  recom 
mend  to  their  legislatures  "  the  unconditional  and  early 
repeal  "  of  these  laws.2 

In  his  annual  message,  the  governor  set  forth  a  powerful 

1 J.  D.  Cox,  Military  Reminiscences,  vol.  i,  p.  4. 

*  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  252. 


56  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [IO,2 

argument  in  support  of  the  authority  of  the  national  gov 
ernment  to  maintain  itself  and  against  the  right  of  seces 
sion.  He  was  willing  to  concede,  however,  that  the  "  dis 
contents  which  have  grown  up  between  the  States  may  and 
ought  to  be  reconciled  ",  and  held  that  if  the  clauses  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law,  "  offensive  and  derogatory  to  those 
who  are  required  to  execute  it,  be  repealed,  there  is  no 
doubt  the  personal  liberty  laws  which  obstruct  its  proper 
execution,  if  any  such  there  be,  passed  from  whatever  mo 
tive,  would  be  repealed  or  essentially  modified."  This,  he 
thought,  should  be  done  since  the  obnoxious  features  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  were  inserted  at  the  instigation  of  those 
who  were  not  interested  in  its  execution  and  who  were 
plotting  to  defeat  it,  while  the  states  really  wronged  by  the 
legislation  of  the  free  states  were  loyal  to  the  Union  and 
were  not  urging  their  wrongs  to  overthrow  it.  He  also 
reviewed  his  action  on  the  extradition  cases  of  the  preceding 
year,  giving  the  same  reasons  which  had  been  given  by  the 
attorney-general  for  his  refusal  to  surrender  the  fugitives. 
Had  he  been  clothed  with  the  legal  authority,  he  maintained, 
he  would  have  promptly  surrendered  the  accused  parties, 
but  his  sense  of  duty  together  with  the  practices  of  the  de 
partment  did  not  permit  him  to  do  so.  "  The  legislative 
power  vested  in  the  General  Assembly,"  he  held,  "  com 
prehends  an  authority  to  provide  for  the  surrender  of  fugi 
tives  from  justice  in  cases  not  covered  by  the  Federal  Con 
stitution."  This  was  the  consideration  which  prompted 
him  to  lay  the  matter  before  that  body.1 

The  consideration  of  compromise  measures  was  begun  as 
soon  as  the  Assembly  was  organized.  In  the  House,  the 
Democrats,  without  waitng  for  the  governor's  message, 
offered  resolutions  endorsing  the  Crittenden  compromise, 

^Executive  Documents,  1860,  pt.  i,  pp.  554  et  seq. 


J93J        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  57 

and  presented  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  second  section  of 
the  kidnapping  act  of  April  17,  I857.1  This  section,  as 
already  noted,2  provided  a  penalty  for  the  kidnapping  of  any 
black  or  mulatto,  and  forbade  the  removal  of  any  such 
person irom  the  state  without  first  taking  him  "before  the 
court,  judge  or  commissioner  of  the  proper  circuit,  district 
or  county  having  jurisdiction  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,"  and  there  establishing  by  proof,  according 
to  those  laws,  property  in  such  person.  The  bill  was  re 
ferred  to  the  committee  on  judiciary  for  consideration. 

During  the  early  days  of  the  session,  both  parties  labored 
in  caucus  to  unite  their  various  elements  on  some  proposi 
tion  for  adjusting  the  difficulties  with  the  South.  While  the 
Republicans  were  unsuccessful  for  the  time  being,  the 
Democrats  agreed  to  support  resolutions  embodying  the 
compromise  that  had  been  prepared  by  a  committee  made 
up  of  Senators  and  Representatives  from  the  border 
states.  This  proposition  recommended  the  repeal  of  all 
Personal  Liberty  laws;  an  efficient  amendment  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  which  would  prevent  kidnapping  and 
equalize  the  fees  of  commissioners  before  whom  fugi 
tives  were  brought ;  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  pro 
hibiting  interference  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states 
or  its  abolition  in  places  under  Federal  jurisdiction  without 
the  consent  of  the  states  in  which  such  places  were  located ; 
the  prohibition  of  interference  with  inter-state  slave  trade, 
and  the  perpetual  prohibition  of  the  African  slave  trade; 
the  extension  of  the  line  36°  30'  across  the  continent  as 
the  dividing  line  between  slavery  and  freedom;  and  the 
admission  to  statehood  of  any  territory,  having  an  area  of 
60,000  square  miles  and  containing  sufficient  population  for 


1  House  Journal,  1861,  pp.  4  and  6. 
'*  Supra,  p.  21. 


58  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [I94 

one  member  of  Congress,  with  or  without  slavery  as  its  con 
stitution  might  determine.1  These  resolutions  were  offered 
in  the  House  on  January  8th. 

The  House  also  proceeded  to  a  consideration  of  the 
matter  in  committee  of  the  whole.  The  kidnapping  bills 
which  had  been  postponed  during  the  first  session  2  were 
brought  up  again  for  discussion.  On  the  second  day  of  the 
session,  the  Baldwin  measure  was  reported  to  the  House 
with  a  recommendation  for  indefinite  postponement,  and 
this  was  voted,  fifty-nine  to  thirty-one,  against  the  radicals. 
On  the  next  day  a  motion  to  excuse  the  committee  from 
further  consideration  of  the  Senate  bill  was  carried,  but 
another  one  to  postpone  was  not  put  to  vote  owing  to  the 
determined  effort  of  the  radicals  to  have  the  bill  referred 
to  the  committee  on  judiciary.3  Both  branches  adopted 
resolutions  4  instructing  their  judiciary  committees  to  ex 
amine  the  statutes  of  the  state  and  report  whether  or  not 
there  were  any  acts  in  force  which  conflicted  with  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and,  the  House 
added,  with  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  and  to  report 
at  as  early  a  day  as  possible. 

After  strenuous  efforts  the  Republicans  in  caucus  finally 
agreed  upon  a  set  of  resolutions  which  were  drafted  by  a 
caucus  committee  representing  all  shades  of  opinion  both 
conservative  and  radical,  and  they  were  offered  in  the 
Senate,  January  I2th,  by  Harrison.  They  declared  as  fol 
lows: 

(i)  The  people  of  Ohio  believe  that  the  preservation  of 

1  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  73.     House  Journal,  p.  12. 
*  Cf.  supra,  p.  32. 

3 House  Journal ',  1861,  pp.  14  and  23. 

4 In  the  House  Jan.  gth,  House  Journal,  p.  21.  In  the  Senate  Jan. 
nth,  Senate  Journal,  p.  16. 


195]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  59 

the  government  is  essential  to  the  peace,  prosperity  and 
safety  of  the  American  people. 

(2)  The  general  government  cannot  permit  the  seces 
sion  of  any  state  without  violating  the  bond  and  compact 
of  Union. 

(3)  The  power  of  the  national  government  must  be  main 
tained  and  the  laws  of  Congress  enforced  in  the  states  and 
territories  until  their  repeal  by  Congress  or  until  they  are 
declared  unconstitutional.     All  attempts  by  state  authority 
to  nullify  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Congress  or  resist 
their  execution  are  destructive  of  the  wisest  government  in 
the  world. 

(4)  The  people  of  Ohio  are  opposed  to  meddling  with 
the  internal  affairs  of  other  states. 

(5)  The  people  of  Ohio  will  fulfill  in  good  faith  all  their 
obligations  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  demand  the  same  of  every  state  in  the  Union. 

(6)  It  is  incumbent  upon  any  states  having  enactments 
on  their  statute  books  conflicting  with  or  rendering  less 
efficient  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States  to 
repeal  them. 

(7)  All  Union-loving  citizens  who  have  labored  to  with 
hold  their  states  from  secession  are  entitled  to  the  gratitude 
of  the  whole  American  people. 

(8)  The  entire  power  and  resources  of  Ohio  are  pledged 
for  the  maintenance,  under  strict  subordination  to  the  civil 
authority,  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  general  gov 
ernment,  by  whomsoever  administered. 

(9)  Copies  of  the  resolutions  should  be  sent  to  the  Presi 
dent,  the  two  houses  of  Congress  and  the  governors  of  all 
the  states.1 

These   resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote, 

1  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  19. 


60  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [IO/6 

the  senators  pledging  themselves  to  join  hands  in  an  effort 
to  restore  peace  and  maintain  the  Union.  The  House, 
which  had  adjourned  for  the  day,  was  called  together  and 
the  journal  changed,  against  the  signed  protest  of  fourteen 
Democratic  members,  to  indicate  that  it  had  only  taken  a 
recess.  The  resolutions  were  offered,  and  some  attempts 
were  made  by  the  Democrats  to  amend  them  by  introducing 
a  sentiment  adverse  to  the  coercion  of  those  states  that  had 
declared  their  allegiance  to  the  Union  dissolved.  The  at 
tempts  failed,  however,  and  after  a  motion  to  postpone  had 
been  defeated  by  a  strict  party  vote,  the  resolutions  were 
voted  upon  separately  and  carried,  five  unanimously  and  the 
others *  against  the  opposition  o<f  a  few  of  the  extreme 
Democrats. 

By  this  action,  Ohio  was  placed  on  record  as  favoring 
the  repeal  of  whatever  state  legislation  tended  to  render 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ineffective,  and  thus  removing  any 
grievance  the  South  might  have  on  that  score.  Other 
states  adopted  the  same  policy,  and  by  the  end  of  January 
most  of  these  laws  throughout  the  North  had  been  taken 
from  the  statute  books.2  While  the  tone  of  the  resolutions 
was  too  conservative  to  satisfy  some  of  the  radicals,  yet 
they  acquiesced  in  them  for  the  time  being  in  the  interest  of 
harmony.  The  differences  between  the  two  factions  of  the 
party  were  not  by  any  means  adjusted,  however,  and  much 
time  was  still  to  be  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  ques 
tions  at  issue. 

On  the  next  day  after  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions,  the 
Senate  bill  to  prevent  kidnapping  was  again  taken  up  for 
discussion.  Fourteen  radicals  still  held  out  for  the  immedi 
ate  passage  of  such  a  law,  and  the  discussion  turned  on  the 

1  The  ist,  2d,  8th,  and  gth.     House  Journal,  1861,  p.  40. 

2  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p.  253. 


197]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  6l 

question  whether  the  state  should  maintain  a  position  of 
non-action  or  manifest  a  disposition  to  conciliate  the  South. 
The  bill  was  finally  referred  to  the  committee  on  judiciary 
by  vote  of  fifty-two  to  forty-one.1  When  it  was  reported 
two  days  later  with  a  recommendation  of  indefinite  post 
ponement,  this  was  carried  by  vote  of  seventy-one  to  twenty- 
six.2  Twenty-seven  Republicans  who  had  cast  their  ballot 
to  refer  on  the  first  vote  changed  on  the  second,  and  all 
but  five  of  these  came  from  the  southern  part  of  the  state. 

On  the  matter  of  unconstitutional  legislation,  the  Senate 
committee  reported  on  January  25th,  that  the  second  sec 
tion  of  the  act  of  April  17,  1857,  was  the  only  law  which 
was  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  presented  a  bill  for  its  repeal.  After  some  days  of  dis 
cussion,  this  was  referred  back  to  the  committee  with  in 
structions  to  report  in  writing.3  The  committee  of  the 
House  made  its  report,  February  7th,  proposing  a  substi 
tute  which  would  limit  the  provisions  of  the  section  in  ques 
tion  to  free  persons  and  omit  the  clause  requiring  proof 
before  a  court.  In  the  majority  report,  signed  by  the  con 
servatives  and  Democrats,  the  reasons  stated  were  that  the 
substitute  would  provide  ample  protection  to  all  free  per 
sons  in  Ohio,  and  would  remove  the  feature  of  the  act 
which  was  held  to  be  unconstitutional,  since  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  had  decided  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs. 
Pennsylvania  4  that  the  owner  of  a  slave  had  an  unquali 
fied  right  to  his  property  which  was  not  impaired  by  flight, 
and  that  no  state  law  could  interfere  to  control  or  restrain 
this  right.  The  minority  of  the  committee,  representing 
the  radicals,  presented  a  report  denying  that  the  law  in  ques 
tion  was  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution;  if  it  were,  then 

1  House  Journal,  1861,  p.  48.  *  Ibid.,  p.  55. 

*  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  119.         *  U.  S.  Reports,  16  Peters,  p.  540. 


62  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [198 

the  Federal  laws  of  1793  and  1850,  which  required  the 
owner  to  prove  his  property  and  which  had  been  held  con 
stitutional,  must  be  repugnant  to  the  fundamental  law.  The 
Constitution,  this  report  held,  was 

no  limitation  upon  the  State  to  exercise  its  own  police  regula 
tions,  nor  does  it  give  any  extra-territorial  force  to  the  laws 
of  the  State  from  whence  the  slave  may  have  fled,  further 
than  it  holds  the  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  slave  to  render 
service  to  the  master  valid. 

It  nowhere  provided  that  reasonable  delay,  to  determine  a 
question  in  controversy,  could  not  be  had  in  allowing  the  re 
turn  of  a  slave.1  The  bill  and  reports  were  laid  on  the 
table,  and  no  further  action  was  taken  on  the  matter  in 
either  house. 

The  Democrats  not  only  gave  their  support  to  all  meas 
ures  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Personal  Liberty  laws,  but 
also  urged  the  enactment  of  positive  legislation  to  com 
pel  the  governor  to  surrender  fugitives  from  the  south 
ern  states.  Acting  on  Dennison's  assertion  that,  "  the  legis 
lative  power  of  the  State  vested  in  the  General  Assembly 
comprehends  an  authority  to  provide  for  the  surrender  of 
fugitives  from  justice  in  cases  not  covered  by  the  Federal 
Constitution,"  they  took  up  the  matter  at  once,  and  on  the 
second  day  of  the  session  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House 
providing  that  any  person  charged  with  the  commission  of 
a  criminal  offense  against  the  laws  of  any  state  and  flee 
ing  to  Ohio,  should  be  delivered  up  to  the  governor  of  the 
state  from  which  he  fled,  whether  the  act  charged  was  con 
trary  to  the  laws  of  Ohio  or  not.2  A  second  bill,  intro 
duced  a  few  days  later,  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  person 

1  Reports  in  House  Journal,  1861,  App.,  p.  9. 
2 House  Journal,  1861,  p.  10. 


199]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  63 

to  harbor  a  runaway  slave  or  assist  him  to  escape.1  A  third 
presented  the  most  radical  Democratic  views,  in  providing 
that  any  person  knowingly  aiding  a  fugitive  slave  to  escape 
should  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  held  to  pay  the  value 
of  the  slave  to  the  county  in  which  the  offense  was  com 
mitted  in  addition  to  serving  a  prison  sentence,  while  the 
county  in  turn  was  to  be  held  responsible  to  the  master  for 
the  value  of  the  slave.2 

These  bills  were  all  referred  to  the  judiciary  committee, 
which  reported,  February  ist,  recommending  their  indefinite 
postponement.  The  reasons  given  were  the  same  as  those 
advanced  in  the  report  of  February  7th,  that  the  Constitu 
tion  required  Congress  to  enact  necessary  laws  for  the  re 
turn  of  fugitives  from  service,  and  since  the  Supreme  Court 
had  decided  that  Congress  had  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter,  the  enactment  of  a  state  law  would  only  produce 
conflicts  between  the  state  and  the  Federal  courts.3 

The  first  two  bills  were  laid  on  the  table  while  the  third 
precipitated  a  six  days'  discussion  which  ranged  over  the 
whole  question  of  slavery.  The  conservative  doctrine  had 
been  set  forth  in  a  series  of  resolutions  offered  in  the  House, 
February  6th,  calling  on  Congress  to  pass  an  act  more  spe 
cifically  defining  for  what  offenses  a  fugitive  should  be  de 
livered  up  and  the  mode  in  which  the  application  should  be 
made.4  The  Democrats  took  the  position  that  the  return 
of  fugitives  was  a  matter  for  the  state  to  control,  and  that 
it  was  due  the  South  that  some  law  such  as  had  been  sug 
gested  should  be  enacted.  The  radicals  were  for  sustaining 
the  governor's  action,  and  held  that  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  was  at  least  permanent,  since  the  Lago  case  was 
still  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court.  Finally,  on  February 

1  House  Journal,  1 86 1 ,  p .  1 07 .  2  Ibid. ,  p .  1 65 . 

p.  216.  *  Ibid.,  p.  142. 


64  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [2QO 

2/th,  the  debate  was  closed  by  the  House  refusing  to  engross 
the  bill. 

In  the  Senate  things  went  more  quietly  in  regard  to  all 
these  various  matters.  A  bill  was  introduced,  January 
26th,  by  one  of  the  conservatives  making  it  a  crime  for  a 
person  to  assist  anyone  owing  service  in  another  state  to 
escape.1  The  discussion  showed  a  hopeless  difference  of 
opinion,  and  the  bill  was  finally  referred  to  a  select  com 
mittee  which  never  reported  it. 

The  most  noted  contest  of  the  session  between  the  con 
servatives  and  radicals,  came  over  the  selection  of  delegates 
to  the  Peace  Conference  at  Washington.  In  a  message, 
January  25th,  Governor  Dennison  transmitted  to  the  Sen 
ate  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  Virginia  legislature  pro 
posing  a  conference  to  meet  at  the  Capital,  February  4th, 
to  make  an  effort  to  adjust  matters  on  the  basis  of  the  Crit- 
tenden  compromise.  After  reciting  the  proposals  submitted, 
the  governor  proceeded  to  say  that  he  thought  the  terms  of 
adjustment  were  inadmissible,  and  regretted  that  all  encour 
agement  of  reliance  on  the  Constitution  as  it  then  was,  had 
been  omitted.2 

On  the  receipt  of  the  message,  Monroe,  cautioning  the 
Senate  against  haste,  moved  to  lay  the  matter  on  the  table, 
while  Harrison  urged  immediate  action,  holding  that  after 
the  efforts  of  eminent  men  of  the  border  states  in  Congress 
to  preserve  the  Union,  Ohio  should  omit  no  effort  to  meet 
her  sister  states  in  an  attempt  to  restore  peace  to  the  dis 
tracted  country.  The  motion  prevailed,  however,  and  the 
Virginia  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  committee  on  Fed 
eral  relations.3  When  the  communication  was  received  in 
the  House,  Nigh,  one  of  the  conservative  members,  offered 
a  joint  resolution  providing  that  Thomas  Ewing,  Joseph  R. 


1  Senate  Journal,  p.  50.  ^Ibid.,  p.  47.  *  Ibid.,  p.  51. 


201  ]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  65 

Swan,  Daniel  R.  Tilden,  David  Tod  and  William  S.  Groes- 
beck  be  chosen  as  commissioners  to  represent  Ohio.1  This 
was  laid  over  and  taken  up  for  discussion  two  days  later 
by  a  majority  of  one  vote.  A  spirited  debate  followed  be 
tween  the  two  factions,  the  conservatives  urging  that  com 
missioners  chosen  by  the  legislature  would  be  more  kindly 
received  by  the  border  states  than  any  appointed  by  the 
governor  who  had  assumed  such  a  hostile  attitude  toward 
them,  while  the  radicals  held  that  since  the  Democrats  had 
said  in  their  convention  a  week  before  that  the  contest  must 
be  between  the  Republican  party  and  the  South,  they  could 
have  no  right  to  membership  on  the  commission.  This 
latter  faction  also  argued  for  postponing  the  conference 
until  April,  on  the  ground  that  the  time  was  too  short  for 
all  of  the  states  to  select  representatives,  but  their  real  pur 
pose  was  to  delay  it  until  after  the  inauguration  of  Lincoln. 
Above  all,  they  objected  to  the  Crittenden  compromise  as  a 
basis  of  adjustment. 

In  a  stormy  Republican  caucus,  in  the  course  of  which  the 
radicals  served  notice  on  the  conservatives  that  they  must 
act  with  the  Republican  majority  on  all  party  measures  or 
quit  the  Republican  camp,  a  project  was  adopted  by  no 
means  unanimously,  and  offered  in  the  House,  as  a  substi 
tute  for  the  joint  resolution.  It  accepted  the  invitation,  di 
rected  the  governor  to  appoint  five  commissioners  and  ex 
pressed  a  preference  for  April  4th  as  the  date  on  which  the 
conference  should  meet.  It  further  stated: 

That  while  we  are  not  prepared  to  assent  to  the  terms  of  settle 
ment  proposed  by  Virginia,  and  are  fully  satisfied  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  it  is,  if  fairly  interpreted 
and  obeyed  by  all  sections  of  the  country,  contains  ample  pro 
vision  within  itself  for  the  correction  of  all  evils  complained 

1  House  Journal,  p.  102.  The  first  three  of  these  were  conservatives 
and  the  others  were  Democrats. 


66  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [2Q2 

of,  yet  a  disposition  to  reciprocate  the  patriotic  spirit  of  a  sister 
State  and  a  sincere  desire  to  have  harmoniously  adjusted  all 
differences  existing  between  us,  induces  us  to  favor  the  ap 
pointment  of  commissioners  as  requested. 

This  was  met  by  the  conservatives  with  a  counter  substi 
tute  which  provided  that  Thomas  Ewing,  Reuben  Hitch 
cock,  William  S.  Groesbeck,  John  McLean  and  Joseph  R. 
Swan  be  constituted  commissioners,  and  held  it  to  be  un 
wise  and  inexpedient  to  embarrass  them  with  any  expres 
sion  of  opinion  as  to  the  adjustment  of  the  existing  differ 
ences.  It  however  left  April  4th  as  the  date.  This  substi 
tute  was  carried  by  the  Democrats  and  conservatives,  and 
the  resolution  as  amended  was  then  adopted.1 

This  defeat  was  keenly  felt  by  the  radicals.  In  com 
menting  on  it  the  Cleveland  Leader  said :  "  It  is  humiliating 
that  with  a  Republican  majority  of  30,000  votes,  Ohio  has 
not  a  Republican  majority  in  her  legislature."  2  The  feel 
ing  was  intensified  by  the  tone  of  Governor  Letcher's  mes 
sage  in  transmitting  the  resolutions  of  January  I2th  to  his 
legislature,  in  which  he  said  that  such  resolutions  sent  to 
the  slave-holding  states  could  only  excite  resentment  and 
inflame  prejudice,  and  since  the  legislature  of  Virginia  had 
expressed  its  opinion  on  the  doctrine  of  coercion,  they  could 
be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  as  a  threat  against  all 
those  states  which  recognized  the  right  of  secession.3  An 
attempt  was  made  to  get  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote,  on 
the  ground  that  the  resolution  as  adopted  was  a  tacit  ad 
mission  that  Ohio  would  compromise  on  the  basis  indicated 
by  Virginia,  but  it  failed. 

In  the  Senate,  Harrison,  from  the  committee  on  Federal 

1  House  Journal,  1861,  p.  109. 

*  Editorial,  January  3ist. 

3  Cincinnati  Commercial,  January  28th . 


203]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  67 

relations,  reported  a  substitute  which  he  explained  was  a 
compromise  between  the  two  factions  in  the  committee.  It 
proposed  that  the  commissioners  be  appointed  by  the  gov 
ernor  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  that  no  instruc 
tions  be  given.1  A  minority  report  was  presented  embody 
ing  the  Republican  caucus  resolutions.  Both  reports 
were  referred  back  to  the  committee  with  instructions  to 
endeavor  to  agree  on  some  proposition.  On  January  3oth 
a  substitute  was  reported  from  this  committee,  to  which 
the  House  resolutions  had  in  the  meantime  been  referred, 
providing  that  the  commissioners  be  chosen  by  joint  con 
vention  of  the  two  houses  and  incorporating  the  caucus  in 
structions.2  An  amendment  giving  the  power  of  appoint 
ment  to  the  governor  was  carried  by  the  deciding  vote  of 
the  presiding  officer,  and  the  substitute  was  then  adopted. 
It  was  sent  back  to  the  House  where  it  was  pushed  through 
by  a  vote  of  fifty-two  to  forty-five,  under  great  pressure 
from  the  radical  leaders.3 

Thus,  as  the  resolutions  were  finally  adopted,  the  radi 
cals  won  on  the  method  of  appointment  and  the  instructions, 
while  the  date  was  left  as  originally  fixed.  On  the  day  after 
their  adoption  provision  was  made  for  two  additional  mem 
bers  of  the  commission.  As  finally  appointed,  it  consisted 
of  S.  P.  Chase  and  Reuben  Hitchcock,  radicals;  Thomas 
Ewing,  Sr.,  Franklin  T.  Backus  and  Valentine  B.  Horton, 
conservatives ;  John  C.  Wright,  an  old  line  Whig ;  and  Will 
iam  S.  Groesbeck,  a  Democrat.  During  the  session  of  the 
conference  Wright  died,  and  the  governor  appointed  his  at 
torney-general,  C.  P.  Walcott,  an  intense  radical  and  the 
author  of  the  opinions  on  the  extradition  cases,  to  the 

1  Senate  Journal ',  p.  55.  *  Ibid.,  p.  57. 

3  House  Journal,  p.  121.     Chase  was  present  at  the  session  in  the  in 
terest  of  the  measure. 


68  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [204 

vacancy.  There  was  much  opposition  to  this  appointment, 
the  Senate  confirming  it  by  the  narrow  majority  of  one. 

The  contest  on  these  various  matters  was  keen  and  the 
contestants  pretty  evenly  matched,  but  as  the  session  ad 
vanced  the  spirit  of  conciliation  gained  ground.  The  ques 
tion  of  calling  a  convention  of  the  states  had  been  brought 
up,  January  nth,  by  Key,  one  of  the  Democratic  senators 
from  Hamilton  county,1  and  on  January  24th  the  president 
of  the  Senate  submitted  the  resolutions  of  the  Democratic 
convention  on  that  subject.  Both  propositions .  were  re 
ferred  to  the  committee  on  Federal  relations,  and  no  action 
was  taken  until  March  7th,  when  the  Key  resolutions  were 
reported  back  without  recommendation.2  In  the  discus 
sion,  their  author  urged  their  adoption  in  the  interest  o>f 
compromise,  and  especially  since  similar  resolutions  had 
been  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of  Kentucky,  Illinois,  and 
Wisconsin.  Monroe  asked  that  action  be  delayed  until  his 
side  could  be  brought  together.  He  asserted  that  a  few 
months  before  they  would  all  have  opposed  such  a  proposal, 
but  that  their  views  were  changing.  On  his  motion,  con 
sideration  was  postponed  for  a  week,  when  the  resolutions 
were  adopted  with  only  five  dissenting  votes.3  In  the  House 
they  were  carried  against  the  votes  of  twenty-two  Republi 
cans,  half  of  whom  were  from  the  Reserve.4 

On  March  23d,  the  proposals  for  compromise  which  had 
been  agreed  upon  by  the  Peace  Conference  and  rejected  by 
both  houses  of  Congress,  were  offered  in  the  House  by 
one  of  the  conservatives  and  tabled.5  Two  days  later,  the 
governor  transmitted  to  the  Senate  the  Corwin  Amend 
ment,  which  had  been  passed  by  Congress  a  few  days  before. 
This  proposed  to  add  to  the  Federal  Constitution  an  article 

1  Senate  Journal,  1861,  p.  15.         *Ibid.,  p.  155.         *Ibid.,  p.  177. 
4 House  Journal,  p.  346.  *Ibid.,  p.  366. 


205]        POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  69 

that  would  forbid  Congress  to  abolish  or  interfere  with  the 
domestic  institutions  of  any  state.1  A  resolution  of  ratifica 
tion  was  offered,  but  action  was  delayed  until  April  I7th, 
when  it  was  adopted  against  the  votes  of  the  Reserve  mem 
bers.2  In  the  House,  it  was  not  taken  up  until  after  the 
war  had  actually  begun,  when,  on  May  I3th,  the  last  day 
of  the  session,  it  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  four  votes.8 
Only  one  other  state,  Maryland,  ratified  the  Amendment 

In  March,  after  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  had 
announced  its  decision  in  the  Lago  case,  the  governor  was 
called  upon  by  the  House  for  a  copy  of  the  decision,  and  an 
attempt  was  made  by  the  Democrats  to  bring  up  again  the 
question  of  returning  fugitives.  A  bill  was  introduced 
making  it  compulsory  on  the  governor  to  deliver  up  a  fugi 
tive  from  justice  charged  with  an  offense  considered  as  a 
crime  by  the  laws  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled.  This 
was  referred  to  its  author  as  a  select  committee  and  re 
ported  by  him  on  April  i6th.4  He  advocated  its  passage 
because  of  the  governor's  expression  in  his  message,  and 
because  the  Supreme  Court  had  held  in  its  decision  that 
while  Congress  could  not  impose  a  Federal  duty  on  the 
officers  of  a  state,  yet  when  called  upon  to  perform  such  a 
duty,  it  would  be  an  act  of  good  faith  on  their  part  to  com 
ply.  The  passage  of  the  bill  would,  he  thought,  do  much 
to  relieve  Governor  Dennison  and  the  people  of  the  state 
from  the  censure  and  hostility  manifested  toward  them, 
and  would  tend  in  great  measure  to  "  restore  that  good 
understanding  and  mutual  comity  which  formerly  existed 
between  us  and  our  sister  States."  The  bill  and  report  were 
laid  on  the  table,  and  no  further  action  was  taken. 

The  only  legislation  on  the  question  of  the  negro  that 

1McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  58. 

2  Senate  Journal ,  p.  289.  3 House  Journal ,  p.  652. 

*fdid.,  p.  571,  and  App.,  p.  87. 


70  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [206 

reached  fruition  during  the  session  was  an  act  to  prevent 
intermarriage  between  the  two  races.1  The  Democrats  kept 
the  question  of  immigration  before  the  two  houses,  but 
could  not  bring  the  conservatives  to  act  with  them  on  any 
measure  to  prohibit  it. 

Another  contest  of  some  importance  occurred  over  the 
acceptance  of  a  request  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  February  4th,  that  Ohio  lend  her  credit  to  the  national 
government  to  guarantee  the  repayment  of  United  States 
bonds  to  the  amount  of  the  surplus  revenue  which  the  state 
had  received  in  the  distribution  of  1836*  In  the  Senate 
there  was  little  opposition  to  granting  this,  and  a  bill  was  at 
once  passed  under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,8  but  in  the 
House  it  was  violently  opposed  by  some  of  the  Democrats 
"  as  unwise,  inexpedient  and  a  flagrant  violation  of  the 
Constitution  of  our  State."  *  After  considerable  discussion 
and  several  attempts  at  amendment,  it  was  finally  passed, 
February  I4th,  with  twenty-five  Democrats  still  opposing  it.5 
Similar  requests  were  made  lo  New  York,  Pennsylvania 
and  Massachusetts,  and  granted.  The  proceeding  was 
unique,  the  United  States  asking  the  states  to  guarantee  the 
payment  o<f  her  bonds;  however,  as  it  worked  out  the  en 
dorsement  was  not  needed,  and  the  states  were  not  called 
upon  to  make  good  their  guarantee. 

After  the  entrance  of  Chase  into  the  Cabinet,  a  contest 
began  among  those  who  had  Senatorial  aspirations,  for  his 
place.  Dennison  and  Sherman  were  prominent  candidates, 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Iviii,  p.  6. 

2 Senate  Journal ',  1861,  p.  93.  z Ibid,,  p.  94. 

4 House  Journal,  pp.  180  and  204.  The  state  Constitution,  art.  viii, 
sec.  4,  says:  "The  credit  of  the  State  shall  not,  in  any  manner,  be 
given  or  loaned  to,  or  in  aid  of  any  individual,  association  or  corpora 
tion  whatever." 

5  House  Journal,  p.  176. 


207]         POLITICS  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  THE  WAR  jl 

as  well  as  the  conservatives,  Horton,  Schenck  and  Delano. 
In  a  Republican  caucus  held  March  I4th,  thirty-two  ballots 
were  taken,  in  two  of  which  Dennison  received  a  majority, 
but  both  times  there  were  more  votes  cast  than  members  of 
the  caucus.  The  Reserve  was  strong  for  him,  though  the 
Cleveland  Leader  advocated  the  choice  of  a  man  from  the 
southern  part  of  the  state,  in  order  that  Wade's  chances  for 
reelection  the  next  year  might  not  be  jeopardized.  Horton 
was  a  promising  candidate,  but  his  attitude  on  the  meas 
ures  discussed  in  the  Peace  Conference  was  too  conserva 
tive  to  win  much  support  from  the  radicals.  On  March 
20th,  Sherman  was  nominated  on  the  seventy-eighth  ballot, 
and  he  was  elected  in  joint  convention  of  the  two  houses 
the  next  day.1 

The  legislature,  at  this  session,  during  the  months  pre 
ceding  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  as  well  as  after  hostilities 
had  begun,  was  compelled  to  deal  with  the  most  momentous 
problems  of  the  period.  The  conflict  which  raged  within 
the  state  between  the  different  political  factions  was  little 
less  strenuous  than  that  which  was  being  carried  on  at  the 
national  capital.  But  as  the  contest  went  on,  the  radical 
platform  of  opposition  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  and  no 
compromise  with  the  South  lost  many  of  its  supporters, 
and  the  policy  of  conciliation  grew  in  favor.  Public 
opinion  in  Ohio  as  throughout  the  North  was  inclining  to 
ward  compromise,  and  this  had  its  effect  on  the  legis 
lature.  The  resolutions  of  January  i2th  were  conservative, 
and  while  they  did  not  express  the  sentiment  of  the  radicals 
at  the  time  of  their  adoption,  this  element  of  the  party;  by 
the  beginning  of  April,  had  tempered  its  views  to  conform 
to  them.  True,  the  law  of  1857  was  not  repealed,  but  there 
was  a  question  as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  in  conflict  with 

^Cincinnati  Commercial,  March  22d.  Sherman,  Recollections, 
vol.  i,  p.  233. 


72  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [2o8 

the  Constitution,  and  the  fact  that  there  was  little  desire 
outside  of  the  Reserve  to  reenact  the  Personal  Liberty  laws 
which  the  Democratic  legislature  had  repealed,  shows  a  great 
change  from  the  attitude  taken  in  the  defeat  of  Judge  Swan 
and  the  renomination  of  Judge  Brinkerhoff.  Again,  though 
the  conservatives  were  not  quite  able  to  take  the  appoint 
ment  of  the  Peace  Commissioners  out  of  the  governor's 
hands,  and  thus  administer  a  rebuke  for  his  action  on  the 
extradition  cases,  yet  it  was  only  by  the  greatest  pressure 
from  the  party  leaders  that  the  caucus  resolutions  were 
driven  through  the  lower  house.  The  fact  that,  so  far  as 
the  great  questions  at  issue  were  concerned,  the  statute  book 
remained  the  same  as  it  had  been  left  by  the  preceding 
Democratic  legislature,  indicates  the  change  which  was  de 
veloping  in  political  feeling  in  the  state.  The  Ohio  Re 
publicans,  it  is  true,  followed  the  lead  of  Congress,  and 
advanced  beyond  it  only  in  adopting  a  resolution,  which 
Congress  refused  to  pass,  calling  for  a  national  convention; 
but  their  willingness  to  ratify  the  Corwin  Amendment 
shows  that  they  were  alert  to  every  suggestion  for  com 
promising  the  difficulties  with  the  South. 

The  result  of  the  spring  elections  indicated  the  change 
of  sentiment  among  the  people  at  large.  The  reunited 
Democrats,  supported  by  the  Bell  men  and  by  many  of  the 
conservatives,  carried  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Columbus, 
Sandusky  and  Toledo,  the  five  largest  cities  of  the  state. 
In  Cleveland,  these  factions  combined  on  a  "  Union  "  ticket, 
the  idea  of  which  originated  with  the  Plain  Dealer.  Com 
mercial  interests  and  a  growing  feeling  that  the  Abolition 
ists  were  to  blame  for  the  existing  troubles,  worked  to  keep 
the  state  friendly  to  her  southern  neighbors,  and  had  not  the 
South  begun  hostilities,  it  is  probable  that  Ohio1  would  have 
gone  with  the  conservatives  or  even  with  the  Democrats  in 
the  fall  elections. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO;  ORGANIZATION  AND  WORK 
GENESIS  OF  THE  UNION  PARTY 

WITH  the  firing  upon  Fort  Sumter,  the  beginning  of 
actual  civil  war,  Ohio  was  called  upon  to  turn  from  her  con 
sideration  of  compromise  measures  and  face  the  new  situa 
tion  presented  to  the  North.  The  hasty  and,  as  it  was 
thought,  unreasonable  action  of  the  South  in  resorting  to 
arms  to  destroy  the  Union  left  seemingly  no  choice.  With 
characteristic  enthusiasm  Ohio,  through  a  large  majority  of 
her  people,  declared  herself  ir>  favor  of  supporting  the  na 
tional  government  in  all  measures  looking  toward  the  sup 
pression  of  the  rebellion. 

Mass  meetings,  regardless  of  party,  were  held  in  various 
parts  of  the  state,  notably  at  Columbus  and  Cincinnati,  and 
resolutions  were  adopted  calling  on  the  people  to  ignore 
party  differences  and  unite  in  a  generous  support  of  the 
national  administration.  At  the  Cincinnati  meeting,  reso 
lutions  drafted  by  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  then  a  resident  of 
that  place,  asserted  that  the  people,  without  regard  to  party, 
were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  as  against  the  rebellious  citizens  of  the  se 
ceding  and  disloyal  states,  ought  to  be  maintained.1  To 
gether,  Mr.  Hayes  and  'Judge  Stanley  Matthews,  who  was 
serving  as  United  States  Attorney  for.  the  southern  district 
of  Ohio  under  appointment  from  President  Buchanan, 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  April  i6th. 
209]  73 


74  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [2io 

agreed  that  they  would  go  into  the  war,  Mr.  Hayes  writing 
in  his  diary :  "  I  would  prefer  to  go  into  it  if  I  knew  I  was 
to  die  or  be  killed  in  the  course  of  it,  than  to  live  through 
and  after  it  without  taking  any  part  in  it."  * 

Throughout  the  southern  part  of  the  state,  public  opinion 
advanced  to  the  position  occupied  by  the  Cincinnati  Gazette, 
the  radical  organ  of  southern  Ohio.2  The  Commercial,  in 
answer  to  reflections  on  its  peace  editorials,  held  that,  while 
it  was  an  early  advocate  of  a  national  convention  to  settle 
the  differences  upon  a  fair  and  permanent  basis  or  to  allow 
the  cotton  states  to  go  in  peace,  it  had  never  been  willing 
to  acknowledge  the  right  of  secession  and,  since  the  rebels 
insisted  upon  war,  it  should  be  prosecuted  to  the  uttermost.3 
Even  the  Press  could  claim  a  consistency  between  its  earlier 
position  in  favor  of  peaceable  secession,  and  a  policy  of 
war.  Secession,  it  maintained,  would  not  have  necessitated 
war,  and  had  the  South  harbored  no  designs  beyond  seces 
sion,  she  would  not  have  made  war  the  initiatory  proceed 
ing.  The  conclusion  was,  therefore,  that  the  South  looked 
beyond  secession  to  conquest  and  dominion,  and  hence,  hav 
ing  chosen  war,  she  should  have  it  to  her  heart's  content.4 

The  keynote  of  the  events,  following  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  was  abandonment  of  all  party  feeling  in  the  common 
cause  of  supporting  the  administration  in  putting  down 
the  rebellion  which  the  traitors  of  the  South  had  begun. 
This  was  sounded  by  Governor  Dennison  in  his  proclama 
tion  issued  on  April  I5th,  in  response  to  Lincoln's  call  for 

1  Hayes'  Diary,  MS.     Entry  of  May  10,  1861. 

2  Judge  Simeon  Nash,  of  the  southern  district,  writing  to  Secy.  Chase 
from  Gallipolis,  May  3d,  said:  "I  think  the  Gazette  fairly  represents 
public  opinion  in  southern  Ohio  ...  I  would  not  have  believed  it  pos 
sible  that  such  a  change  could  have  occurred  in  so  short  a  time." 
Chase  Papers,  MS. 

'Editorial,  August  19,  1861.  *  Editorial,  May  22,  1861. 


2i  i]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  75 

troops,  when  he  said :  "  At  such  an  hour,  rising  above  all 
party  names  and  party  bias,  resolute  to  maintain  the  free 
dom  so  dearly  purchased  by  our  fathers  and  to  transmit  it 
unimpaired  to  our  posterity,  let  the  people  assert  their 
power."  1  It  was  echoed  in  the  resolutions  of  the  mass 
meetings,  and  in  the  dispatch  of  Tod  to  the  President,  that 
the  two  hundred  thousand  Democrats  of  Ohio  were  ready 
to  uphold  him  in  crushing  out  treason  and  rebellion. 

The  General  Assembly  was  still  in  session,  when  the  news 
of  the  beginning  of  hostilities  arrived,  and  its  members  were 
called  upon  to  give  material  expression  to  this  new  senti 
ment.  Governor  Dennison,  in  a  message,  offensive  to  the 
conservative  people  of  the  state  on  account  of  its  partisan 
ship,  declared  that  the  war  had  been  begun  by  the  malcon 
tents  of  the  South  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  slavery  into 
the  territories  where  it  was  prohibited  by  law,  and  would 
be  prosecuted  by  them  to  conquer  and  partition  the  coun 
try.  To  assist  the  national  authorities,  he  recommended  an 
appropriation  of  not  less  than  $450,000  for  the  purpose  of 
arming  and  equipping  the  voluntary  militia,  and  the  prompt 
organization  and  arming  of  the  military  forces  of  the 
state.2  In  the  Senate  this  appeal  met  with  an  immediate 
response.  A  bill  was  introduced  from  the  committee  on 
finance,  "  to  provide  for  the  defense  of  the  State  and  for 
the  support  of  the  Federal  government  against  rebellion," 
making  the  appropriation  asked  for,  and  in  addition  pro 
viding  $500,000  for  carrying  into  effect  any  requisition  of 
the  President  to  protect  the  Federal  government,  and  $50,- 
ooo  as  an  extraordinary  contingent  fund,  all  of  which  was 
to  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  the  governor.3  This 

1  Executive  Documents,  1861,  pt.  i,  p.  376. 
1  Ohio  Statesman,  April  16,  1861. 
*  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Iviii,  p.  89. 


76  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [212 

was  passed  under  a  suspension  of  the  rules  with  only  one 
dissenting  vote,1  the  Democrats  giving  their  support,  not 
because  they  were  especially  favorable  to  the  war  policy,  but 
because  they  disbelieved  in  secession.  In  the  House  a 
motion  to  suspend  the  rules  failed  to  receive  the  necessary 
vote,  a  part  of  the  Democratic  members  opposing  it,  be 
cause  they  wished  to  consult  their  constituents  before  vot 
ing.  By  the  time  the  bill  came  up  in  regular  course  for  its 
third  reading,  however,  the  pressure  from  all  sides  was  suffi 
cient  to  drive  even  the  most  conservative  into  line.  In  a 
series  of  patriotic  speeches  the  opposition  members  declared 
that  having  heard  from  their  constituencies  they  were 
ready  to  give  their  adherence.  While  still  holding  the 
Republicans  responsible  for  the  causes  of  the  war  and  re 
citing  their  own  endeavors  to  secure  peace  and  compro 
mise,  they  held  that  the  South  had  broken  faith  and  had 
committed  an  overt  act  of  treason ;  hence  there  was  nothing 
for  them  to  do,  but  to  vote  to  support  the  government  in 
accordance  with  their  oath  and  for  the  sake  of  Union.  The 
bill  was  then  passed  by  a  unanimous  vote.2 

Lest  the  southern  border  of  the  state  might  become  en 
dangered,  Dennison  sent  a  communication  to  Governor 
Magoffin,  of  Kentucky,  expressing  the  hope  that  nothing 
might  imperil  the  friendly  relations  existing  between  the 
two  states,  and  declaring  his  determination  to  use  all  his  in 
fluence  and  authority  to  prevent  any  aggression  by  citizens 
of  Ohio  against  the  people  or  state  of  Kentucky.  However, 
he  declared  that  all  the  resources  of  the  state  would  be  de 
voted  to  the  support  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  to  the  maintenance  of  whatever  policy 
the  general  government  should  determine  upon.  In  re 
sponse,  the  Kentucky  governor  promised  that  he  would  ex- 

1  Senate  Journal,  i86i,p.  284.  "* House  Journal,  1861,  p.  509. 


213]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  77 

ert  his  influence  to  prevent  anything  being  done  to  endanger 
Ohio  and  especially,  Cincinnati.  A  few  days  later,  he  asked 
the  aid  of  Governors  Dennison  and  Morton  of  Indiana,  in 
an  effort  to  bring  about  a  truce  between  the  general  gov 
ernment  and  the  seceded  states,  until  the  meeting  of  Con 
gress  in  July  in  the  hope  that  some  way  might  be  pointed 
out  by  that  body  to  settle  the  national  difficulties.  Denni 
son  replied  that,  believing  the  general  government  to  be 
wholly  in  the  right,  he  could  see  no  reason  for  the  interpo 
sition  suggested,  but  he  offered  to  unite  with  Magoffin  in  an 
appeal  to  the  seceded  states  to  return  at  once  to  their  alle 
giance  and  thus  terminate  the  difficulties.1  Nothing  further 
came  of  the  correspondence  and  on  May  2Oth  Magoffin 
issued  his  famous  proclamation  of  neutrality. 

In  the  meantime,  while  these  negotiations  were  pending, 
acts  were  passed  by  the  legislature  providing  for  the  or 
ganization  of  the  militia/  appropriating  $2,000,000  for  the 
defense  of  the  state  against  invasion,  and  authorizing  the 
governor  to  continue  in  the  service  of  the  state  nine  regi 
ments  which  had  volunteered  but  had  not  been  called  into 
the  service  of  the  United  States.3  Other  acts  allowed  the 
governor  to  accept  seventeen  new  regiments  to  fill  any 
requisition  of  the  President  or  to  repel  any  invasion;  for 
bade  the  transportation  of  contraband  of  war  through  the 
state;  provided  relief  for  the  families  of  the  militia  mus 
tered  into  the  service  of  the  United  States;  and  exempted 
the  property  of  such  from  sale  on  any  execution.4  Finally, 
a  measure  which  had  been  introduced  in  the  Senate  during 
the  early  part  of  the  session  by  Garfield,  to  define  and 
punish  treason  against  the  state,  was  taken  up  and  passed.15 

I  Correspondence  in  the  Crisis,  May  9,  1861. 

II  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Iviii,  p.  95.  *  Ibid.,  p.  107. 
4  Ibid.,  pp.H3,  126,  127,  132.  *Ibid.,  p.  no. 


78  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [214 

Some  objection  was  raised  to  it  in  the  Senate,  on  the  ground 
that  it  sought  to  make  treason  against  the  United  States 
punishable  in  the  state  courts..  In  the  House  the  members 
from  the  Reserve  refused  to  support  it,  because  it  contained 
a  clause,  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  person  within  the 
state  to  set  on  foot  any  unauthorized  military  expedition  ^ 
against  the  territory  or  people  of  any  of  the  United  States. 

After  enacting  these  measures,  the  General  Assembly  ad 
journed  on  May  I3th,  after  a  session  lasting  over  four 
months.  With  the  hearty  approval  of  the  people,  it  had  ap 
parently  done  everything  to  put  the  state  in  accord  with  the 
national  administration  and  make  for  a  vigorous  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war.  It  remained  to  be  seen,  however,  whether 
this  abandonment  of  party  and  this  unanimous  support  of 
the  Union  would  survive  the  first  burst  of  enthusiasm  and 
continue  through  the  excitement  of  a  political  campaign. 

The  Plain  Dealer,  after  its  success  in  the  spring  election 
at  Cleveland,2  continued  its  advocacy  of  a  Union  party  and 
urged  unity  of  purpose  in  support  of  the  administration.3 
The  Cleveland  Herald  took  up  the  matter  and  expressed 
the  hope  that  the  parties  would  combine  and  nominate 
Union  men  for  the  fall  election.4  But  several  things  came 
up  to  complicate  the  situation.  In  the  hurry  and  excite 
ment  attending  the  first  days  of  the  war,  many  more  troops 
were  accepted  by  the  adjutant-general  than  could  be  made 
use  of  and  those  who  could  not  be  provided  for  became 
impatient  and  angry  when  sent  back  to  their  homes.  Gov 
ernor  Dennison  was  also  accused  of  showing  favoritism  in 

1  Cf.  the  attitude  of  the  Reserve  on  the  John  Brown  raid  resolutions, 
supra,  p.  35. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  72. 
'Editorial,  April  23,  1861. 
*  Editorial,  May  31,  1861. 


215]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  79 

making  appointments  in  the  army  and  awarding  contracts 
for  supplies  for  the  troops,  and  whether  justly  or  not,  he 
became  the  object  of  the  most  bitter  attacks  in  the  con 
servative  and  Democratic  press.1  In  any  Union  movement, 
therefore,  he  must  necessarily  be  eliminated,  and  his  sup 
porters  were  loath  to  agree  to  this. 

Again,  the  Democracy  claimed  to  be  the  real  Union  party, 
with  no  other  platform  than  that  of  preserving  the  Union 
and  no  sympathy  for  such  as  the  Abolitionists,  who  sought 
to  divide  it.  As  the  Ohio  Statesman  put  it  :  "  We  are  now 
as  we  ever  have  been,  for  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  as 
it  is.  We  go  for  maintaining  both  at  all  hazards  and  at 
every  sacrifice  save  the  sacrifice  of  that  liberty  and  those 
rights  which  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  were  formed 
to  secure."  2 

Although  there  was  much  discussion  in  the  press  through 
out  the  state  as  to  the  advisability  of  uniting  all  parties, 
there  was  a  wide  variance  of  opinion  as  to  what  form  the 
movement  should  take.  Up  to  the  middle  of  the  summer, 
there  was  no  agreement  on  any  plan.  Special  elections  were 
held  on  May  28th  in  the  seventh  and  thirteenth  congres 
sional  districts,  to  choose  successors  to  Corwin  and  Sher 
man.  In  Corwin's  district,  Harrison  of  Madison  county,  the 
leader  of  the  conservatives  in  the  upper  house  of  the  As 
sembly  just  closed,  ran  as  an  Independent,  announcing  that 
he  had  been  called  upon  by  men  of  all  parties  to  become  a 
Union  candidate.  In  Sherman's  district  a  straight  Repub 
lican  was  nominated  and  elected.  In  June,  local  Democratic 
conventions  were  held  in  Holmes,  Mercer,  and  Scioto  coun 
ties  and  Democratic  tickets  nominated. 

The  matter  assumed  a  more  concrete  form  when  on  July 


Cincinnati  Commercial  was  the  leader  in  these  attacks. 
'Editorial,  May  7,  1861. 


8o  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [216 

5th  the  Democratic  state  central  committee  met  and  issued 
a  call  for  a  state  convention  to  be  held  on  August  7th.  An 
invitation  was  extended  to  all  the  electors  of  Ohio,  "  who 
are  in  favor  of  perpetuating  the  principles  upon  which  our 
Union  was  founded,  and  are  convinced  that  the  present  State 
and  National  Administrations  are  wholly  incompetent  to 
manage  the  government  in  its  present  critical  condition  " 
to  participate;  the  conservative  Union  men  being  especially 
mentioned.1  This  action  brought  down  a  storm  of  protest 
from  the  Commercial  and  Plain  Dealer,  because  there  was 
no  word  about  vindicating  the  authority  of  the  government 
or  reestablishing  the  union  of  the  states.  The  Plain  Dealer 
held  that  the  Democracy  of  the  state  were  not  included  in 
the  invitation,  since  they  had  a  large  majority  of  the  two- 
hundred  thousand  soldiers  then  under  arms,  sustaining  the 
constitutional  government  in  putting  down  the  rebellion. 
The  call,  however,  had  the  effect  of  stimulating  those  who 
were  championing  the  movement,  to  formulate  some  plan 
by  which  it  might  be  carried  out. 

In  an  open  letter  such  a  plan  was  proposed  by  G.  Volney 
Dorsey,  a  Douglas  Democrat  from  Miami  county,  as  fol 
lows: 

Let  no  convention  be  called  by  the  Central  Committees  of 
either  of  the  old  parties,  but  rather  by  men  of  both  parties, 
and  let  that  convention  meet  as  a  Union  Convention,  nominate 
good  conservative  men  from  the  ranks  of  both  political  parties, 
and  let  there  be  an  election  as  in  the  days  when  Mr.  Monroe 
was  voted  for  in  Ohio.2 

Other  plans  were  suggested  along  similar  lines;  all  agreed 
that  a  non-partisan  citizens'  convention  should  be  held,  and 
the  Plain  Dealer  thought  the  Republican  state  central  com- 

lOhio  Statesman,  July  6,  1861.  *  Ibid.,  July  nth. 


217]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  8! 

mittee  should  make  the  necessary  arrangements.  The  Re 
publican  committee  of  Cuyahoga  county  met  on  July  2Oth 
and  resolved  to  adjourn  without  taking  any  action  upon  the 
subject  of  calling  a  nominating  convention,  pending  the 
action  of  the  state  committee. 

With  these  suggestions  before  it,  the  Republican  state 
central  committee  met  on  July  25th  and  resolved  that  it  was 
not  at  that  time  expedient  to  call  a  convention  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  for  the  nomination  of  state  officers,  but  that  the 
Democratic  state  committee  be  requested  to  join  in  a  call 
for  a  joint  delegate  convention.  In  the  event  that  this  invi 
tation  should  not  be  accepted  by  August  Qth,  the  executive 
committee  was  directed  to  issue  a  call  to  the  people  of  the 
state  to  select  delegates  to  a  nominating  convention,  "  to 
be  chosen  without  reference  to  party,  upon  the  simple  basis 
of  the  maintenance  of  the  government  and  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion  against  it'' 1 

The  adoption  of  these  resolutions  did  not  bring  the  parties 
any  nearer  together  than  the  previous  discussion  had  done. 
The  Ohio  Statesman  published  them  under  the  title,  "  Obitu 
ary  ",  and  said :  "  The  Republican  State  Central  Committee 
after  a  laborious  and  mournful  session  on  Thursday  night 
laid  out  and  placed  coppers  on  the  eyes  of  the  Republican 
organization.  ...  It  was  born  July  I3th,  1854,  deceased 
July  26th,  1861,  just  seven  years  and  thirteen  days  old." 
The  Statesman  held  that  the  Democratic  committee  had  not 
been  delegated  any  power  to  accept  such  an  invitation.  The 
Crisis,  under  the  warning,  "  Beware  of  Masked  Batteries," 
considered  that  the  Republicans,  having  put  the  country  into 
such  a  miserable  plight,  were  now  breaking  into  a  panic 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,  July  26,  1861 .     Cf.  also  August  I4th  for  letter 
to  Democratic  committee. 
'Editorial,  July  27,  1861. 


82  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [218 

and  calling  upon  the  Democrats.  It  asked  to  be  excused.1 
The  Chicago  Times  contributed  its  advice :  "  We  trust  that 
neither  the  Democrats  of  Ohio  nor  any  other  State  will 
enter  into  any  such  coalition.  The  "  No  Party  "  pretense 
of  the  Republican  leaders  and  the  Republican  administration 
at  Washington,  has  been  a  fraud  from  the  beginning  of  the 
war."  2 

Nor  was  there  unanimity  in  the  ranks  of  the  Republican 
party.  The  radical  element  was  not  enthusiastic  over  the 
project  of  abandoning  their  principles.  Giddings  had  at 
tended  the  meeting  of  the  central  committee  and  had  warned 
the  members  against  sacrificing  the  Chicago  platform;  and 
his  organ,  the  Ashtabida  Sentinel,  called  the  action  of  the 
committee  a  very  fair  imitation  of  the  Bull  Run  retreat. 
Secretary  Chase  had  been  consulted  earlier  in  the  year  and 
had  advised  the  holding  of  a  Republican  convention,  giving 
recognition  among  the  nominees  to  the  patriotic  Democratic 
element.3  The  Cleveland  Leader,  however,  gave  unquali 
fied  support  to  the  movement  as  being  best  for  the  state. 

The  Plain  Dealer  was  confident  that  the  invitation  would 
be  accepted  by  the  Democratic  convention,  when  it  as 
sembled  on  August  7th,  and  suggested  that  it  nominate  a 
full  ticket  of  unexceptionable  Union  men,  the  governor  and 
one  supreme  court  judge  to  be  taken  from  the  Democratic 
ranks  and  the  rest  of  the  ticket  from  the  Republican  ranks. 
This  arrangement,  it  was  sure,  would  be  acceptable  to  those 
who  had  proposed  the  union.  For  a  platform,  it  suggested 
the  Crittenden  resolution,  which  had  a  few  days  before  been 
adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives  at  Washington.4 

'Editorial,  August  i,  1861. 

'Editorial,  July  28th. 

'Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  275. 

4 This  resolution  asserted,  (i)  that  the  war  had  been  forced  upon  the 


219]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  83 

Most  of  the  counties  held  their  local  conventions  for 
selecting  delegates  to  the  Democratic  convention,  during 
the  days  intervening  between  the  adoption  of  the  resolution 
by  the  Republican  committee  and  August  7th.  The  general 
sentiment  expressed  by  those  who  attended  was  unfavorable 
to  any  coalition.  In  several  counties,  attempts  were  made 
to  adopt  the  Crittenden  resolution,  but  in  none  were  they 
successful,  objection  being  made  to  the  first  clause,  because 
it  did  not  include  the  disunionists  of  the  North  also.  The 
most  radical  resolutions  were  those  adopted  by  the  Butler 
county  convention.  They  declared  that  a  war  for  forcing 
any  sort  of  government  on  the  sovereign  people  of  a  state 
was  neither  constitutional  nor  practical;  demanded  a  peace 
able  adjustment  of  all  controversies  between  the  two  sec 
tions;  received  with  abhorrence  the  proposal  to  unite  with 
the  Republicans,  and  urged  the  state  committee  to  reject  any 
such  overture  with  silent  contempt.1 

When  the  delegates  began  to  assemble  in  Columbus  for 
the  convention,  some  were  rejoicing  at  the  defeat  at  Bull 
Run,  and  were  ready  to  make  political  capital  out  of  the  mis 
management  of  the  War  Department  and  the  blunderings 
and  triflings  of  Governor  Dennison.  The  Breckinridge 
wing  of  the  party  was  much  in  evidence,  as  were  also  many 
members  of  the  Bell  and  Everett  party.  On  the  evening 
before  the  convention  met,  Mr.  Crittenden  addressed  a  large 

country  by  the  disunionists  of  the  southern  states  in  revolt  against  the 
constitutional  government,  and  (2)  "that  this  war  is  not  waged  upon 
our  part  in  any  spirit  of  oppression,  nor  for  any  purpose  of  conquest  or 
subjugation,  nor  purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  rights 
or  established  institutions  of  those  States;  but  to  defend  and  maintain 
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  to  preserve  the  Union  with  all 
the  dignity,  equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired;  that 
as  soon  as  these  objects  are  accomplished  the  war  ought  to  cease." 
McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  286. 
^Cincinnati  Gazette,  August  6,  1861. 


84  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [22O 

crowd  from  the  State  House  steps,  urging  an  earnest  sup 
port  of  the  government;  but  there  was  no  mistaking  what 
the  attitude  of  the  delegates  would  be. 

In  connection  with  the  governorship,  the  names  of  H.  J. 
Jewett,  Stanley  Matthews,  Ex-Senator  William  Allen, 
George  W.  Morgan,  George  W.  McCook,  Thomas  J.  Smith, 
and  C.  L.  Vallandigham  were  suggested,  but  only  the  first 
three  were  actually  balloted  on.  Jewett  was  nominated  by  a 
large  majority.  For  lieutenant  governor,  Johnj  Scott  Har 
rison,  a  Know-Nothing,  was  nominated  but  later  declined, 
refusing  to  be  a  party  candidate,  and  John  C.  Marshall  of 
Brown  county,  an  old-line  Whig,  who  had  been  very  active 
in  the  canvass  of  the  preceding  year  for  the  Democrats,  was 
selected  by  the  central  committee  in  his  place. 

The  platform  declared  the  war  to  be  the  "  natural  off 
spring  of  misguided  sectionalism  engendered  by  fanatical 
agitators,  North  as  well  as  South ;  and  that  the  Democratic 
party  .  .  .  is  in  no  way  responsible  for  calamities  that  have 
resulted  from  a  departure  from  its  doctrines,  and  a  disre 
gard  of  its  warning  and  advice;  "  embodied  the  second  part 
of  the  Crittenden  resolution;  recommended  the  calling  of  a 
national  convention,  "  for  the  purpose  of  settling  our  present 
difficulties  and  restoring  and  preserving  the  Union ;  "  de 
nounced  the  corruption  and  extravagance  in  the  war  depart 
ments  of  both  the  state  and  national  governments ;  expressed 
the  hearty  thanks  of  the  Democracy  to  the  volunteer  sol 
diers  ;  and,  holding  that  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  could  be  suspended  only  by  Congress,  denounced  the 
late  attempt  of  the  President  to  suspend  its  privilege,  as  un 
warranted  by  the  Federal  Constitution. 

The  sentiment  of  the  resolutions  was  not  entirely  in  accord 
with  the  previously  expressed  attitude  of  the  candidate  nomi 
nated  for  governor,  and,  therefore  Mr.  Jewett,  in  his  letter 
of  acceptance,  re-stated  his  views  on  the  great  issue.  While 


221  ]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  85 

holding  that  he  had  no  terms  to  offer  to  the  parties  engaged 
in  rebellion  except  unconditional  surrender  to  the  Union, 
he  considered  that  the  number  of  this  class  was  small  and 
that  the  great  mass  of  the  southern  people  were  loyal  to  the 
government.  These  he  would  invite  to  a  national  conven 
tion  to  advise  and  consult  on  the  common  good.  For  the 
restoration  of  harmony,  he  would  make  any  reasonable  con 
cession,  not  to  pacify  the  traitor,  but  to  disarm  the  traitor 
by  undeceiving  the  betrayed.  However,  he  would  not  over 
look  the  fact  that  the  rebellion  was  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  were  opposed  to  any  reasonable  and  peaceful  adjust 
ment  of  the  difficulties,  short  of  submission  to  their  policy 
and  an  acknowledgment  of  their  independence;  he  would 
therefore  not  impair  or  weaken  the  army  or  government, 
but  impart  energy  to  both.  Under  no  circumstances  would 
he  consent  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  or  consider  terms 
of  separation.1 

This  willingness  to  support  the  government  in  the  war, 
while  winning  applause  from  those  who  supported  the  Union 
movement,  had  a  tendency  to  put  the  candidate  out  of  ac 
cord  with  those  who  had  nominated  him ;  and  when  after  the 
lapse  of  two  years  he  was  again  a  candidate  for  the  nomin 
ation,  he  was  accused  of  having  abandoned  Democratic 
principles.  A  few  days  after  the  publication  of  this  letter 
the  state  central  committee  adopted  a  resolution  denouncing 
in  strong  terms  the  efforts  of  the  President  to  abridge  the 
constitutional  right  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press,  by  at 
tempting  the  suppression  of  Democratic  newspapers,  and 
declared  that  the  Democrats  of  Ohio  would  uphold  their 
rights  by  all  the  legal  and  constitutional  means  in  their 
power.2  By  this  action  it  was  made  clear  that  the  party 
as  an  organization  did  not  intend  to  put  itself  in  sympathy 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  August  16,  1861. 

2  Ibid.,  August  28th. 


86  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [222 

with  the  administration.  The  Plain  Dealer  had  accepted 
the  platform,  bolstered  up  by  Jewett's  letter,  as  embodying 
the  true  Union  spirit.  When  this  resolution  was  announced, 
it  took  down  the  ticket  and  refused  to  support  any  nominee 
until  he  should  declare  his  repudiation  of  the  platform.1 

The  time  allowed  for  the  acceptance  by  the  Democratic 
committee  of  the  invitation  to  unite  the  parties  having  ex 
pired,  the  Republican  executive  committee  did  not  formally 
carry  out  its  instructions,  to  issue  a  call  for  a  convention.2 
But  a  popular  call,  signed  by  about  one  hundred  names,  ap 
peared  in  the  Ohio  State  Journal  on  August  I3th,  inviting 

all  loyal  citizens, of  Ohio  who  are  in  favor  of  the  maintenance 
of  the  Government,  and  of  the  vigorous  and  continued  prose 
cution  O'f  the  war  now  carried  on  for  the  suppression  of  the 
rebellion  against  the  Government,  to  meet  and  appoint  dele 
gates  to  a  Union  Convention  to  be  held  at  the  city  of  Columbus 
on  Thursday,  the  5th  of  September  next. 

In  order  that  the  convention  might  be  truly  representative 
of  the  whole  body  of  voters  of  the  state,  it  was  suggested 
that  it  be  composed  of  one  delegate  for  each  one  thousand 
of  the  aggregate  vote  cast  in  each  county  at  the  last 
election. 

The  counties  responded  promptly  to  the  call.  In  most 
cases  a  proposal  was  made  by  the  Republican  county  com 
mittee  for  a  joint  convention  in  which  the  local  offices 
should  be  divided  evenly  between  the  two  parties,  but  this 
was  refused  by  the  Democrats  of  more  radical  tendencies, 
who  preferred  to  nominate  their  own  tickets.  The  result 
was  that,  in  most  of  the  counties,  Union  mass  conventions 
were  held,  composed  of  the  Republicans  and  those  Demo 
crats  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the  war  policy,  in  which 

Editorial,  August  29,  1861. 
y  Cf.  supra,  p.  81. 


223]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  87 

delegates  were  selected  to  attend  the  state  convention  and 
local  tickets,  made  up  from  the  ranks  of  both  parties  were 
nominated.  In  urging  united  action,  much  publicity  was 
given  in  the  press  to  the  sentiment  expressed  by  Douglas 
in  his  last  speech :  "  Whoever  is  not  prepared  to  sacrifice 
party  organizations  and  platforms  on  the  altar  of  his  coun 
try,  does  not  deserve  the  support  or  countenance  of  honest 
people." 

Having  arrived  at  the  determination  to  lay  aside  old 
party  principles  and  affiliations,  there  came  to  the  members 
of  the  Union  party  the  question  of  constructing  a  suitable 
platform  to  express  the  new  attitude,  and  of  selecting  a 
a  proper  candidate  to  head  the  movement.  Various  sugges 
tions  were  made  as  to  what  the  platform  should  contain. 
The  Cincinnati  Commercial  favored  the  adoption  of  the 
Crittenden  resolution  and  placed  this  at  the  head  of  its  edi 
torial  column,  while  the  Gazette,  considering  that  this  re 
solution  had  served  its  purpose  and,  at  a  time  when  even 
the  letter  of  the  Constitution  was  being  ignored,  would  be 
liable  to  perversion,  held  that  the  rallying  cry  should  be: 
"  the  maintenance  of  the  National  Government  according 
to  the  Constitution,  and  the  most  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war  to  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion."  *  The  Cleve 
land  Leader  thought  that  a  resolution  endorsing  the  senti 
ment  of  the  call  would  suffice.2 

As  for  a  candidate,  it  was  conceded  that  the  nomin 
ation  should  go  to  a  Democrat  who  was  in  sympathy  with  a 
vigorous  war  policy.  Several  names  were  suggested,  but 
before  the  convention  assembled  it  was  pretty  generally 
agreed  that  David  Tod  would  be  the  nominee.  Prominent 
in  Democratic  politics  for  many  years,  he  had  been  his 
party's  candidate  for  governor  in  1844  and  1846,  and  had 

Editorial,  May  loth.  'Editorial,  August  13,  1861. 


88  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [224 

presided  over  the  convention  which  nominated  Douglas  in 
1860.  An  ardent  supporter  of  the  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war,  he  had  fitted  out  a  whole  company  of  troops  with 
uniforms  for  the  service  and  had  pledged  to  the  President 
the  assistance  o>f  the  Democrats  of  the  state.  He  had 
promptly  repudiated  the  platform  and  ticket  of  the  Demo 
cratic  convention,  because  of  its  refusal  to  pledge  the  sup 
port  of  the  party  to  the  government. 

On  September  5th  the  convention  met  in  pursuance  of  the 
call.  It  was  presided  over  by  Thomas  Ewing,  Sr.,  who 
said  in  his  address  to  the  delegates:  "Since  1854  I  have 
belonged  to  no  party,  but  now  I  find  myself  belonging  to 
one,  the  party  of  my  country."  A  true  Union  spirit  pre 
vailed  among  the  delegates  and  there  was  little  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  what  should  be  done. 

The  platform  consisted  of  the  whole  of  the  Crittenden 
resolution,  with  the  following  added : 

Resolved,  in  the  language  of  the  Honorable  Joseph  Holt,  that 
we  are  "  for  this  Union  without  condition,  one  and  indivisible, 
now  and  forever;  for  its  full  preservation  at  any  and  every 
cost  of  blood  and  treasure,  against  all  its  assailants  and  against 
any  and  every  compromise  that  may  be  proposed  to  be  made 
under  the  guns  of  the  rebels." 

Tod  was  nominated  for  governor  by  acclamation,  and  the 
rest  of  the  ticket  was  divided  evenly  between  the  two  old 
parties.  The  extent  to  which  the  Reserve  Republicans  sur 
rendered  their  partisan  spirit  was  shown  by  their  acquies 
cence  in  the  renomination  of  Judge  Scott,  who  had  stood 
with  Judge  Swan  in  the  Oberlin  rescue  case  in  declaring 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law  constitutional. 

It  was  with  some  little  reluctance,  however,  that  the  radi 
cal  element  came  over  to  this  new  position  of  abandoning 
all  Republican  principles.  Senator  Wade,  in  the  meeting  of 


225]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  89 

the  committee  on  resolutions,  attempted  to  get  an  endorse 
ment  of  the  administration  inserted  in  the  platform;  after 
ward  in  the  convention,  John  A.  Bingham l  proposed  a 
resolution  pledging  the  people  of  the  state  "  to  sustain  the 
Federal  Administration  in  the  continued  and  vigorous  pro 
secution  of  the  war  until  the  rebellion  against  the  Govern 
ment  shall  be  effectually  subdued,  to  the  end  that  the  Con 
stitution  and  Union  may  be  maintained  in  their  integrity;  " 
but  the  convention  refused  to  receive  it,2  and  failed  even  to 
endorse  the  administration  of  Governor  Dennison. 

Thus  the  Republican  party  as  a  state  organization  went 
out  of  existence,  and  its  members  for  the  most  part  af 
filiated  with  this  new  Union  party.  Some,  it  is  true,  went 
into  it  under  protest,3  but,  their  organization  gone,  there  was 
no  other  choice  except  to  remain  away  from  the  polls  en 
tirely.  Those  who  were  in  control  of  the  Democratic  party, 
on  the  other  hand,  chose  to  maintain  its  existence  and  to 
take  issue  with  the  new  party  on  the  question  of  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war. 

In  his  letter  of  acceptance,  Tod  held  that  the  issue  pre 
sented  was  man's  capacity  for  self-government.  He  had 
no  doubt  that  it  would  eventually  be  settled  to  the  satisfac 
tion  of  all  the  world.  He  believed  that  the  masses  of  the 
people  in  the  South  still  loved  the  Union  and  would,  if  left 
untrammeled,  declare  for  its  continuance.  Hence,  he  would 

lfThen  representing  the  21  st  district  in  Congress. 

2  Cincinnati  Commercial,  September  7,  1861. 

5W.  C.  Howells  had  persistently  opposed  the  movement  and  repudi 
ated  the  call  for  the  state  convention  because  it  refused  to  sustain  the 
administration  or  justify  the  course  it  had  taken.  W.  T.  Bascom, 
editor  of  the  Xenia  Torchlight,  wrote  to  Chase,  February  12,  1863;  "I 
was  not  an  advocate  of  the  abandonment  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
opposed  it  in  a  set  speech  in  our  Convention.  ...  But  I  was  voted 
down  and  went  with  the  majority  to  make  the  best  of  it."  Chase 
Papers,  MS. 


90  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [226 

argue  for  war  eternally  until  the  leaders  "  were  brought  to 
condign  punishment,  and  their  misguided  followers  re 
stored  to  reason  and  brought  back  to  a  recognition  of  the 
true  purposes  and  intentions  of  the  Federal  Government."  * 

The  campaign  was  a  rather  quiet  one,  neither  party  en 
gaging  in  any  extensive  speech-making.  Tod's  principal 
speech  was  made  at  Youngstown,  September  28th.  In  it 
he  considered  that  it  was  folly  to  talk  of  compromise  to  an 
army  of  over  one  hundred  thousand  men  within  a  few 
days'  march  of  the  seat  of  government,  that  measures  of 
peace  would  be  laughed  at  by  them.  As  an  example  to  all 
future  traitors,  the  leaders  of  the  rebellion  must  be  put  out 
of  the  way,  and  this  done,  the  thousands  of  good  and  loyal 
men  acting  with  them  from  compulsion  would  return  to 
their  duty.2  Jewett,  in  commenting  on  Tod's  letter  of  ac 
ceptance,  held  that  while  both  were  convinced  that  there 
wras  a  large  body  of  loyal  people  in  the  South,  Tod  would 
visit  them  with  the  sword,  while  he  would  appeal  to  them  as 
men,  seeking  to  convince  them  of  their  error  and  unde 
ceive  them.3 

Tod's  majority  in  the  election  was  55,223.  The  total 
vote  polled,  358,791,  was  over  50,000  less  than  that  of  the 
state  election  of  the  preceding  year,  and  approximately  the 
same  as  that  of  1859.  In  the  Reserve  alone,  Tod's  ma 
jority  was  28,780  as  against  15,527  for  Dennison,  yet  there 
was  a  falling-off  in  the  total  vote  of  about  8000,  coming 
mostly  from  the  Democratic  ranks.  The  other  Republican 
sections  of  the  state  showed  a  similar  result,  though  not  so 
marked.  In  most  of  the  Democratic  counties  there  were 
gains  on  both  sides,  but  usually  with  decreased  Democratic 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  September  13,  1861. 
*  Cincinnati  Commercial,  October  3,  1861. 
3  Ohio  Statesman,  September  13,  1861. 


ELECTION  r  GOVERNOR 
1861 

Unionist  Counties  Shaded 
Democratic  Counties  Unshaded 


227]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  9! 

majorities,  only  ten  counties  in  the  whole  state  showing 
increased  Democratic  majorities  over  those  of  I859,1  while 
in  fourteen  Democratic  counties  the  Unionists  carried  the 
ticket.  On  the  legislative  ticket,  the  Unionists  elected  a 
large  majority  of  the  members.2  Having  thus  obtained 
control  of  both  the  executive  and  legislative  departments 
of  the  government,  it  remained  to  be  seen  how  this  new 
party  would  deal  with  the  questions  which  were  to  arise  in 
connection  with  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 

WORK  OF  THE  FIRST  UNION  LEGISLATURE 

The  General  Assembly  which  convened  on  January  6, 
1862,  was  called  upon  not  only  to  give  an  expression  on 
these  new  questions,  but  also  to  cope  with  some  which  had 
been  left  unsettled  by  its  predecessor.  During  the  special 
session  of  Congress  which  met  on  July  4,  1861,  acts  were 
passed  imposing  a  direct  tax  on  the  land,  laying  an  income 
tax,3  and  authorizing  the  issue  of  treasury  notes  to  the  ex 
tent  of  $50,000,000.*  In  his  annual  report  made  in  Decem 
ber  of  that  year,  Secretary  Chase  recommended  a  national 
banking  system  which  would  involve  the  withdrawal  of  the 
notes  of  state  banks  and  the  issue  of  United  States  notes  in 
their  stead.  Questions  concerning  these  matters  came  up 
during  the  session  of  the  legislature,  together  with  others 
connected  with  the  issuing  of  legal  tender  notes  and  the 
treatment  of  the  slaves  of  those  engaged  in  rebellion  against 

1  These  counties  were:  Holmes,  Licking,  Richland,  Allen,  Auglaize, 
Crawford,  Putnam,  Seneca,  Wyandot,  and  Mercer. 

2 Of  the  ninety-seven  members  elected  to  the  House,  there  were 
twenty-four  Democrats,  thirty-two  Unionists  of  Democratic  ante 
cedents,  thirty-two  Unionists  of  Republican  antecedents,  and  two 
Unionists  of  American  antecedents.  Of  the  thirty-four  members  elected 
to  the  Senate,  there  were  eight  Democrats,  five  Unionists  of  Demo 
cratic  antecedents,  and  twenty-one  Unionists  of  Republican  antecedents. 

3  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xii,  p.  292.  *  Ibid.,  p.  313. 


92  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [228 

the  government.  It  was  also  necessary  for  the  state  to  be  re- 
districted  for  congressional  purposes,  and  a  United  States 
Senator  was  to  be  chosen  to  succeed  Wade,  whose  term  was 
to  expire  March  4,  1863. 

Governor  Dennison's  last  message,  January  7th,  was  a 
rather  long  and  detailed  document,  and  of  course  had  noth 
ing  to  do  with  the  new  party  policy.  He  criticised  severely 
the  financial  project  of  Chase,  on  the  grounds  of  impracti 
cability  and  inexpediency;  and  opposed  the  income  tax  as 
being  unequal,  discriminating  against  the  holders  of  state 
securities,  and  as  operating  as  an  additional  tax  on  prop- 
perty  charged  with  the  direct  tax.  In  the  propositions  then 
before  Congress  for  the  confiscation  of  the  property  of  those 
in  rebellion  and  the  emancipation  o<f  their  slaves,  he  saw 
the  right  solution  of  the  slavery  question.  Recognizing 
slavery  as  the  cause  of  the  war,  he  would  see  the  institution 
destroyed  as  the  best  means  of  ending  the  struggle.1 

The  real  keynote  to  the  new  policy  was  naturally  to  be 
taken  from  the  inaugural  of  the  new  executive  January 
1 6th.  In  this  Governor  Tod  reiterated  the  sentiments  he 
had  expressed  during  the  campaign,  that  the  integrity  of 
the  Union  must  be  preserved  and  maintained  under  the  Con 
stitution  as  it  had  been  given  by  the  fathers,  and  for  that 
purpose,  every  possible  support  should  be  given  to  the  offi 
cers  of  the  national  government.  The  rebellion  could  only 
be  put  down  by  bringing  to  condign  punishment  the  leaders, 
and  "  satisfying  their  misguided  followers  by  a  firm  and 
generous  policy,  that  we  seek,  not  the  destruction  of  any  of 
their  domestic  institutions,  but  only  the  maintenance  and 
enforcement  of  the  Constitution  and  laws."  Ohio,  he  held, 
should  bear  her  share  of  both  the  burden  and  the  glory  of 
the  war,  and  to  do  this,  both  men  and  money  were  neces- 

^  Executive  Documents,  1861,  pt.  i,  p.  331. 


229]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  93 

sary.  The  young  men  of  the  state  by  their  enlistments  were 
providing  the  former,  and,  in  order  that  the  latter  might  be 
supplied  without  unnecessarily  burdening  the  people,  he 
recommended  that  the  state  and  local  expenditures  be  re 
duced  a  third.  Finally,  he  advised  that  the  banks  of  the 
state  be  empowered  for  the  future  to  pay  out  the  notes 
of  banks  which  had  suspended  specie  payment  and  the  treas 
ury  notes  of  the  national  government.1 

Economy,  then,  and  support  of  the  administration  in  its 
efforts  to  crush  the  rebellion,  were  to  be  the  watchwords  of 
the  party.  Tod  had  not  advanced  to  any  new  ground  in 
regard  to  the  end  for  which  the  war  should  be  waged,  nor 
did  he,  so  long  as  he  stood  as  the  exponent  of  the  new 
party  policy. 

There  was  a  notable  lack  of  harmony  in  many  of  the  pro 
ceedings  during  the  session.  Some  of  those  who  had  sat 
in  the  preceding  Assembly  were  returned  as  Unionists,  and 
it  was  difficult  for  them  to  forget  their  old  party  affilia 
tions.  The  first  discordant  note  was  struck  in  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  House,  when  the  members  of  the  new  party,  that 
were  of  Democratic  antecedents  claimed  that  the  division  of 
the  offices  and  committee  assignments  was  not  equitable; 
and  as  a  result  a  few  announced  their  intention  of  standing 
aloof  from  the  party  and  acting  as  independents.  Like 
wise  the  Democrats  caused  continual  disturbances  by  offer 
ing  resolutions  condemning  the  conduct  of  the  war  and 
emancipation,  and  by  rehearsing  the  Crittenden  resolution 
as  to  the  objects  of  the  war.2  Finally,  relations  became 
strained  between  Governor  Tod  and  the  Assembly,  because 
of  a  certain  bluntness  in  the  expressions  of  his  inaugural 
address  and  his  impatience  in  regard  to  the  passage  of  some 
measures  for  the  welfare  of  the  Ohio  troops. 

1  Executive  Documents,  1861,  pt.  i,  p.  481. 

1  Dresel  Resolutions,  January  loth.  House  Journal,  1862,  p.  23. 


94  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [230 

Notwithstanding  this,  the  party  held  together  sufficiently 
to  prevent  the  passage  of  any  resolutions  not  in  accord  with 
its  platform.  Abolition  sentiment  was  presented  in  a  set 
of  resolutions  offered  in  the  Senate  by  Monroe,  who  had 
been  returned  from  Lorain  county,  endorsing  the  Confisca 
tion  bill  of  Senator  Trumbull,  and  asserting  that,  when 
traitors  were  using  their  weapons  against  the  life  of  the 
country,  no  claim  which  they  might  put  forth  to  property 
in  slaves  or  any  other  property,  should  stand  in  the  way  of 
the  success  of  the  Union  army.1  These  were  tabled  without 
discussion,  as  were  others  having  as  their  object  the  forcing 
of  an  expression  on  the  President's  emancipation  message 
of  March  6th.2 

The  only  expression  of  opinion  regarding  the  war  that 
received  the  concurrence  of  both  branches,  was  contained 
in  a  set  of  resolutions  offered  in  the  House  by  Cory,  a 
Unionist  from  Lawrence  county.  They  declared  that 

the  future  peace  of  the  United  States  and  the  permanency  of 
the  Government,  as  well  as  the  best  interests  of  humanity 
throughout  the  world,  demand  the  speedy  trial  and  summary 
execution  of  all  leading  conspirators  in  this  attempt  to  destroy 
the  Government,  and  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  Ohio  .  .  . 
we  protest  against  the  entertainment  of  any  proposition  for 
settlement  other  than  unconditional  submission  to  rightful 
authority  and  the  condign  punishment  of  the  authors  of  the 
rebellion.3 

These  resolutions  passed  both  branches  by  a  unanimous 
vote  after  the  Democrats  failed  in  an  attempt  to  have  the 

1  See  Cincinnati  Commercial,  January  26,  1862. 

'McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  209.  In  this  Lincoln  sug 
gested  that  the  United  States  give  pecuniary  aid  to  any  state  which 
should  adopt  gradual  abolition  of  slavery. 

3  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  lix,  p.  151. 


231]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  95 

Abolitionists  included  with  the  rebels.  A  second  set  was 
passed  by  the  lower  house,  declaring  the  duty  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  be  the  prosecution  of  the  war  with  all  possible 
vigor  until  the  power  of  the  rebellion  should  have  been  de 
stroyed,  and  expressing  full  confidence  in  the  conduct  of  the 
war  by  the  President,  the  War  Department,  and  the  gen 
erals  of  the  army.1  The  Democrats  voted  for  the  first  sen 
timent  but  refused  to  endorse  the  second.  In  the  Senate, 
the  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  committee  on  Federal 
relations  and  never  reported. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  get  a  unanimous  endorsement  of 
the  proposition  to  issue  legal  tender  notes,  while  it  was 
before  Congress,  but  a  resolution  to  that  effect  could  only 
be  passed  over  the  united  opposition  of  the  Democratic  mem 
bers.2  This  vote  came  just  at  a  time  when  there  was  a 
prospect  that  the  Democrats  and  the  conservative  members 
of  the  Union  party  might  unite  on  a  Senatorial  candidate, 
and  it  did  much  toward  preventing  such  a  combination. 

Following  out  the  governor's  recommendations  for  re 
trenchment,  reductions  were  made  in  state  and  local  ex 
penditures  and  appropriations  were  cut  down  until  the  sav 
ing  was  sufficient  to  pay  all  the  expenses  of  the  state  during 
the  year  for  war  purposes,  including  the  state's  share  of  the 
Federal  direct  tax.  The  banks  were  given  permission  to 
receive  and  pay  out  the  notes  of  solvent  banks  which  had 
suspended  specie  payments  and  the  notes  of  the  United 
States.  The  suggestion  which  Governor  Dennison  had 
made  in  regard  to  the  national  income  tax  was  acted  upon, 
and  a  memorial  was  sent  to  Congress  requesting  the  repeal 
of  the  measure  and  the  substitution  of  a  direct  tax  on  land 
in  its  stead.8 

1  House  Journal,  1862,  p.  286.  ' Ibid.,  p.  167. 

8  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  lix,  p.  139. 


96  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [232 

Various  acts  were  passed  having  to  do  with  the  comfort 
and  welfare  of  Ohio  soldiers  and  the  relief  of  their  families. 
Three  bills  were  introduced  during  the  session  with  the 
object  of  extending  the  right  of  voting  to  troops  in  the  field. 
One  of  these  passed  the  Senate,  and  was  received  by  the 
House  just  at  the  close  of  the  session.  After  some  discus 
sion  it  was  laid  on  the  table  and  action  postponed.1  In  the 
politics  of  the  year  this  question  became  prominent,  and  the 
members  of  the  Union  party  had  some  difficulty  in  explain 
ing  why  the  measure  was  not  enacted  into  law. 

Much  time  was  taken  up  by  the  Assembly  in  constructing 
the  new  congressional  districts.  Under  the  apportionment 
act  of  Congress,  Ohio  was  entitled  to  nineteen  Representa 
tives  instead  of  the  twenty-one  which  she  had  elected  dur 
ing  the  preceding  decade,  and  as  finally  adjusted  the  Union 
ists  could  elect  a  possible  sixteen  of  these.  The  two  changes 
which  were  to  be  of  most  importance  in  the  ensuing  fall 
campaign  were  those  made  in  the  Dayton  and  Columbus  dis 
tricts,  represented  respectively  by  Vallandigham  and  S.  S. 
Cox.  To  the  former,  Warren  county,  which  had  been 
strongly  Republican,  was  added,  while  the  latter  was  en 
tirely  disintegrated  and  Franklin  county  was  united  with 
Madison,  Clark,  and  Greene,  all  old  Republican  strong 
holds. 

The  most  troublesome  question  which  the  Assembly  in 
herited  from  its  predecessor  was  that  of  excluding  the  negro 
from  the  state.  The  Democratic  members,  by  the  introduc 
tion  of  bills  and  the  offering  of  resolutions,  persisted  in 
keeping  the  matter  on  the  calendar  throughout  the  session, 
while  their  brethren  in  all  parts  of  the  state  waged  a  cam 
paign  through  the  press,  and  poured  a  flood  of  petitions  into 
the  legislative  chambers,  representing,  according  to  the 

1  House  Journal ',  1862,  p.  679. 


233]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  97 

Crisis,  over  forty  thousand  signers.  The  idea  of  Ohio's 
becoming  the  abiding  place  of  the  slaves  set  free  by  the 
western  armies,  with  the  demoralization  of  labor  that  must 
result,  was  much  to  be  feared  and  abhorred.  In  the  House, 
all  petitions  on  this  subject  were  referred  to  the  committee 
on  Federal  relations,  which  made  an  elaborate  report  cov 
ering  the  questions  of  removing  those  already  resident  in 
the  state,  and  of  prohibiting  the  immigration  of  others.  As 
to  the  first,  the  committee  found  that  (i)  any  plan  of  re 
moval  would  be  inexpedient,  in  that  the  common  rights  of 
humanity  would  demand  that  a  just  compensation  be  made 
for  the  property  which  the  race  held  within  the  state,  which 
would  involve  too  great  a  financial  burden;  and  (2)  it 
would  be  unconstitutional,  in  that  no  person  could  be  trans 
ported  out  of  the  state  for  any  offense  committed  therein — 
which  would  mean  that  no  one  could  be  transported  for  the 
crime  of  refusing  to  move.  As  to  the  second  question,  it 
was  held  that  even  though  it  might  be  desirable  to  exclude 
negro  immigrants,  this  could  not  be  done,  since  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  guaranteed  to  the  citizens  of 
each  state  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens  of  the  several 
states,  and  in  many  of  the  states  the  negro  was  recognized 
as  a  citizen.  The  committee  did  not  agree  with  the  peti 
tioners  that  there  was  any  danger  of  competition  between 
the  races,  since  the  negro,  because  of  his  low  status,  could 
perform  only  the  most  menial  kinds  of  labor.  Finally,  it 
was  confidently  hoped  and  expected  that  should  the  govern-, 
ment  take  such  measures  as  would  lead  to  the  emancipation 
of  many  slaves,  it  would  also  provide  a  new  home  for  them 
through  some  plan  of  colonization.1  The  Assembly  consid 
ered  this  report  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  petition  and  re 
fused  to  take  any  further  action,  thus  postponing  the  matter 
for  another  year. 

1  House  Journal,  1862,  App.,  p.  33. 


98  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [234 

While  there  was  much  minor  dissension  in  the  ranks  of 
the  Unionists  on  many  questions,  the  election  of  a  new 
United  States  Senator  all  but  caused  the  destruction  of  the 
party.  The  candidates  represented  all  shades  of  political 
opinion,  from  the  most  radical  to  the  most  conservative,  the 
most  prominent  being,  Wade,  Chase,  Dennison,  R.  P.  Spald- 
ing  of  Cleveland,  John  A.  Gurley  of  Cincinnati,  Delano, 
Groesbeck,  Tod,  and  Ewing.  Most  of  the  old  radical  Re 
publican  element  supported  Wade,  while  the  Democratic  ele 
ment,  which  held  the  balance  of  power,1  was  violently  op 
posed  to  his  reelection,  holding  that  he  was  out  of  touch 
with  the  administration  because  of  his  extreme  tendencies. 
The  conservative  element  was  divided  on  its  candidates, 
Delano  having  the  largest  following. 

The  attitude  of  Chase  in  the  matter  is  rather  interesting. 
At  odds  with  Wade  because  of  his  action  in  regard  to  the 
Chicago  convention  of  1860,  and  already  out  of  sympathy 
with  his  associates  in  the  Cabinet,  Chase  was  anxious  to  get 
back  into  the  Senate,  but  could  not  rally  his  friends  to  his 
support.  While  openly  announcing  that  he  was  not  a  can 
didate,  he  began  early  in  the  year  to  communicate  with  var 
ious  members  of  the  Assembly  on  the  situation.2  Finding 
his  own  election  to  be  impossible,  he  urged  the  choice  of 
Spalding  or  Judge  Hoadley  of  Cincinnati.8 

The  conservatives  at  first  refused  to  go  into  caucus  with 
the  radicals,  and  determined  to<  oppose  any  election  at  that 
session  in  the  hope  that  new  issues  would  come  up  later 
which  would  affect  the  choice.  A  resolution  was  offered 

*Of  the  131  votes  on  joint  ballot,  the  old  Republican  element  had  60, 
the  Democratic  Unionists  37,  the  Democrats  32,  while  the  other  two 
were  Unionists  of  American  antecedents. 

2  Letter  of  Peter  Zinn  to  Chase,  Jan.  Qth,  Chase  Papers,  MS. 

3  See  letters  in  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  408. 


235]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  99 

in  the  Senate,  February  4th,  calling  for  a  joint  committee  to 
inquire  into  the  advisability  of  postponing  the  election  to 
the  next  year,  in  an  adjourned  session,  but  it  was  voted 
down.1  A  few  days  later  a  resolution  to  fix  the  time  for 
the  election  was  defeated  by  the  deciding  vote  of  the 
president.2  Finally,  after  several  unsuccessful  attempts  had 
been  made  to  hold  a  caucus,  seventy  of  the  Union  members 
were  assembled  on  March  6th.  After  a  stormy  session,  an 
adjournment  was  voted  until  the  nth,  when  thirteen  ballots 
were  taken,  Wade  running  as  high  as  forty-six,  with 
Delano,  his  nearest  competitor,  reaching  thirty-four.  At 
tempts  were  made  by  the  conservatives  to  have  the  caucus 
agree  to  postpone  the  election,  but  the  vote  stood  thirty-one 
to  fifty-two.  An  adjournment  was  then  taken  until  the 
following  evening. 

On  the  next  day  the  matter  came  up  unexpectedly  in  the 
House.  A  resolution  that  the  Assembly  adjourn  sine  die 
on  April  7th,  had  been  offered  on  March  5th  and  tabled. 
It  came  up  for  discussion  on  the  I2th,  when  a  substitute 
was  proposed,  providing  for  an  adjourned  session  and  the 
postponement  of  the  election  of  a  Senator  until  that  time. 
This  was  lost,  the  straight  Democrats  voting  against  it, 
because  of  the  clause  calling  for  an  adjourned  session,  but 
when  another  substitute  was  offered  providing  simply  for 
the  postponement  of  the  election,  they  gave  it  their  sup 
port  and  it  was  carried.  The  Senate  promptly  laid  this 
resolution  on  the  table. 

When  the  caucus  assembled  on  the  same  evening,  four 
teen  more  ballots  were  taken  but  without  any  result.  Had 
it  been  possible  for  the  straight  Democrats  and  the  con 
servatives  to  agree  on  a  candidate,  he  could  have  been 
elected.  But  of  the  two  most  prominently  considered, 

1  Senate  Journal,  1862,  p.  103.  2fbid.,  p.  124. 


100          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [236 

Groesbeck  and  Ewing,  the  former  was  unsatisfactory  to  the 
Democrats  because  of  his  war  sentiments,  while  the  latter 
was  not  able  to  command  the  full  support  of  the  conserva 
tives.  In  the  next  caucus,  March  igth,  eleven  more  ballots 
were  taken,  and  a  vigorous  effort  was  made  to  get  an  ad 
journment  until  the  following  January.  Finally,  on  March 
27th,  after  several  more  ballots  had  failed  to  result  in  a 
nomination,  the  Wade  men  agreed  to  an  adjournment  sine 
die,  and  a  resolution  providing  for  an  adjourned  session 
was  passed  by  the  Assembly  a  few  days  later.1 

THE   POLITICAL   CAMPAIGN    OF    1862 

The  formation  of  the  Union  party  had  thus  transferred 
the  political  control  of  the  state  from  the  radical  element  of 
the  old  Republican  party  to  a  combination  of  the  conserva 
tive  elements  of  both  the  old  parties.  It  was  evident  that 
this  combination  must  continue  to  dictate  the  policy  of  the 
new  organization,  and  the  radicals  soon  began  to  long  for  a 
return  to  former  principles.  Early  in  the  year,  the  Ash- 
tabula  Sentinel  began  to  advocate  such  a  move,  holding  that 
the  only  result  of  giving  up  the  Republican  party  had  been 
to  leave  the  measures  for  which  its  members  had  labored 
for  many  years  without  support,  and  to  free  the  President, 
elected  on  a  Republican  platform,  from  responsibility  to  any 
organized  party.  It  proposed,  therefore,  the  reorganiza 
tion  of  the  old  party  and  the  reaffirmation  of  the  principles 
of  the  Philadelphia  and  Chicago  platforms.2 

This  desire  was  inspired  largely  by  the  developments  of 
the  preceding  month.  Union  organizations,  similar  to  that 
of  Ohio,  had  been  formed  in  most  of  the  northern  states 

1  The  reports  given  in  the  Ohio  State  Journal  and  Cincinnati  Com 
mercial  were  used  in  preparing  this  account  of  the  proceedings. 

2  Editorial,  January  8,  1862. 


237]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  IOi 

during  the  summer  and  fall  of  I86I,1  and  they  had  done 
much  to  remove  from  the  campaign  of  that  year  the  usual 
bitterness  of  a  political  contest  and  to  present  a  strong  front 
to  the  southern  people  in  arms.  But  the  course  of  the  ad 
ministration,  in  connection  with  the  removal  of  General 
Fremont  from  his  command  on  account  of  his  proclamation 
confiscating  the  property  of  the  rebels  and  freeing  their 
slaves,2  had  created,  especially  in  the  old  Abolition  centres 
of  Ohio,  a  feeling  of  intense  hostility  to  the  President,  which 
threatened  to  result  in  the  formation  of  an  anti-administra 
tion  party  among  the  radicals,  on  the  platform  of  emanci 
pation.3 

The  failure  to  reelect  Wade  to  the  Senate,  and  the  sub 
stantial  gains  made  by  the  Democrats  in  the  spring  elec 
tions,  furnished  added  reasons  for  a  return  to  Republican 
principles.  In  the  midst  of  the  wrangling  over  the  Sena 
torial  question,  one  of  Chase's  friends  wrote: 

From  present  indications,  I  shall  not  be  surprised  if  the  Union 
organization  of  Ohio  had  its  death  blow  with  the  throes  which 
gave  it  birth.  It  will  never  answer  for  a  party,  its  elements 
are  too  heterogeneous  to  be  else  than  discordant.  Members  of 
the  Legislature  of  this  party  have  neither  respect  for,  nor  in 
fluence  with,  each  other  except  as  they  were  previously  asso 
ciated.  Straight  Loco  Focos  control  most  of  the  Union  Demo 
crats  and  the  hated  cry  "Abolitionist "  makes  their  hair  stand 
on  end.* 

The  Cleveland  Leader,  much  dissatisfied  with  the  treatment 

1  Cf.  Dunning,  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  October,  1910. 
Also,  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iii,  p,  486. 

2McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  245. 

3  See  Rhodes,  op.  cit.,  pp.  468-485,  especially  extracts  from  letters  in 
foot  notes. 

*  John  H.  Geiger  to  Chase,  March  I7th,  Chase  Papers,  MS. 


102          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [238 

of  Wade,  considering  the  approaching  congressional  elec 
tions  in  the  fall,  urged  that  a  state  convention  be  called  for 
the  purpose  of  nominating  a  straight  Republican  ticket,  and 
that  true  Republicans  be  put  in  nomination  for  Represen 
tatives  to  Congress.1  A  spirited  discussion  was  carried  on 
by  the  press  of  the  state  on  this  question  of  continuing  the 
party,  and  the  strife  became  acute  between  the  two  Cleve 
land  papers,  each  accusing  the  other  of  having  gone  into  the 
movement  for  selfish  purposes. 

The  sentiment  for  keeping  up  the  Union  organization 
prevailed,  however,  and  a  call  was  issued  to  "  all  loyal  citi 
zens  who  are  in  favor  of  the  maintenance  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  of  the  vigorous  and  continued  prosecution  of  the 
war  now  carried  on  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion 
against  the  government."  The  convention  met  on  August 
2  ist,  and  was  completely  dominated  by  the  conservative 
element.  The  platform  reaffirmed  the  opinion  and  prin 
ciples  of  the  convention  held  the  previous  September,  ex 
pressed  undiminished  confidence  in  the  President  in  his  con 
duct  of  the  war  and  pledged  to  his  support  "  all  the  moral 
and  physical  power  of  the  State,"  indorsed  the  conduct  of 
the  governor  in  his  efforts  to  aid  the  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war,  and  praised  the  soldiers  for  the  promptness  of  their 
enlistment  and  their  high  courage  in  the  field.  The  candi 
dates  nominated  were:  for  secretary  of  state,  W.  S.  Kennon, 
of  Belmont,  a  Unionist  of  Democratic  antecedents;  for 
supreme  judge,  F.  T.  Backus,  of  Cleveland ;  and  for  attor 
ney-general,  Chauncey  N.  Olds,  of  Columbus  2 

1  Editorial,  June  14,  1862. 

*W.  D.  Bickham,  then  a  correspondent  on  the  Cincinnati  Com 
mercial,  writing  of  the  convention  to  Chase,  said  that  the  conservative 
Republicans  and  Democrats  were  in  control  of  the  convention.  The 
radical  candidate  for  supreme  judge,  Sutliff  of  Trumbull,  had  no  chance, 
Ewing  dictating  the  nomination  of  Backus.  All  the  candidates  for  at- 


239]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO 

In  several  of  the  district  conventions  there  were  exciting 
contests  between  the  two  elements  of  the  party,  and  the 
Senatorial  question  had  an  important  influence  on  the  nomi 
nations.  In  the  Cleveland  district,  there  was  a  contest  be 
tween  the  Wade  and  Chase  forces,  and  Spalding,  the  Chase 
candidate,  was  nominated.1  A  third  candidate  was  put  in 
the  field  in  the  Toledo  district  by  some  of  the  conservative 
members  of  the  party,  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  work 
of  the  regular  convention  in  nominating  Ashley.2  In  the 
Newark  district,  Delano  failed  to  be  renominated  on  ac 
count  of  the  defection  of  his  own  county,  which  sent  a  dele 
gation  to  the  convention  opposed  to  him  and  even  went 
so  far  as  to  pass  a  resolution  instructing  the  Knox  county 
delegates  in  the  General  Assembly  to  cast  their  votes  for 
Wade  for  Senator.3  In  most  of  the  other  districts,  con 
servatives  were  nominated. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Democrats  had  put  a  ticket  in  the 
field  headed  by  W.  W.  Armstrong,  editor  of  the  Tiffin 
Advertiser,  for  secretary  of  state,  and  Ranney  for  supreme 
judge,  on  a  platform  denouncing  the  Abolitionists  for  forc 
ing  party  issues ;  opposing  the  emancipation  policy  as  likely 
to  throw  upon  Ohio  an  immense  number  of  negroes  to 
compete  with  the  white  laborers ;  condemning  the  violations 
of  the  Constitution  by  the  President;  and  holding  the  re 
fusal  of  the  legislature  to  pass  a  law  giving  the  soldiers 
in  the  field  the  right  to  vote  to  be  an  unjustifiable  wrong  to 
them. 

torney-general  were  conservatives  and  Olds  was  the  least  objectionable. 
For  secretary  of  state,  it  was  necessary  to  take  a  Democrat,  and  Kennon 
was  the  only  one  offered.  Chase  Papers,  MS. 

1  Cf.  letters  of  R.  C.  Parsons  to  Chase,  September  24th  and  October 
6,  1862.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 

2  A.  S.  Latty  to  Chase,  September  10,  1862.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 
3S.  G.  Arnold,   editor  of  the  Newark  North  American,  to  Chase, 

September  19,  1862.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 


104          OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [240 

In  addition  to  those  already  discussed,  various  other  mat 
ters  came  up  during  the  year  to  embarrass  the  Union  party 
and  to  affect  the  political  campaign.  The  failure  of  the 
movement  on  Richmond  in  the  early  part  of  the  year,  led 
Ohio  to  add  her  voice  to  the  general  criticism  of  the  admin 
istration  and  to  the  clamor  for  the  removal  of  McClellan 
from  his  command.  Subsequent  affairs,  culminating  in  the 
second  battle  of  Bull  Run,  increased  the  reproaches  which 
were  being  heaped  upon  the  President  and  his  advisors. 
The  only  success  of  the  year  in  the  east,  the  checking  of 
Lee's  aggressive  movement  at  Antietam,  furnished  scant 
return  for  the  men  and  money  contributed.  Enthusiasm 
for  the  war  ran  low,  and  recruits  were  obtained  with 
difficulty.1 

Under  the  first  call  made  by  the  President  for  300,000 
men,  and  the  later  one  for  the  same  number,  made  at  the 
request  of  the  governors  of  the  northern  states,2  Ohio's 
quota  was  about  75,000  men.  Half  of  these  were,  by  act  of 
Congress  of  July  I7th,  and  the  President's  order  of  August 
4th,  issued  in  pursuance  of  it,  subject  to  be  drafted  by  the 
state  authorities.  It  was  Governor  Tod's  great  desire  that 
the  quota  should  be  filled  without  resorting  to  the  draft, 
and  through  his  influence  unusual  efforts  were  made  to 
do  this.  In  addition  to  proclamations,  and  the  promise  of 
rewards  and  bounties,  a  series  of  war  meetings  was  held 

!John  H.  Geiger  wrote  to  Chase,  July  26th:  "  Public  sentiment  is 
growing  deep  and  bitter  here  against  Mr.  Lincoln  because  he  is  looked 
upon  as  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  closing  up  the  war.  Men  are  losing 
all  respect  for  him  and  consequently  for  the  office  he  holds,  and  in  these 
days  of  revolution  God  only  knows  what  may  come  forth  if  the  people 
get  grounded  in  the  belief  that  the  inertia  or  conservatism  of  the  Presi 
dent  is  gradually  sapping  the  life  of  the  Government."  There  are  many 
letters  in  the  Chase  Papers,  written  by  Ohio  men,  which  express  senti 
ments  similar  to  the  above. 

'Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  194. 


241  ]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO 

throughout  the  state,  in  which  Ranney,  Jewett  and  other 
prominent  Democrats  joined  with  the  leaders  of  the  Union 
party  in  urging  enlistment.  Notwithstanding  these  efforts, 
however,  the  draft  had  to  be  ordered.  The  date  for  begin 
ning  was  originally  fixed  for  September  ist,  but  was  post 
poned  until  the  I5th,  and  then  until  October  ist,  when  it 
was  ordered  by  Governor  Tod  in  sixty-two  counties.  The 
number  then  lacking  to  fill  the  quota  was  12,251. 

Again,  the  advance  of  the  administration  to  the  policy  of 
emancipation  had  a  powerful  influence  on  the  politics  of  the 
year.  While  the  removal  of  Fremont  had  created  mutiny 
in  the  ranks  of  the  radicals,  the  conservatives,  especially  in 
the  southern  part  of  the  state,  were  alienated  by  the  act 
of  Congress  of  July  i/th,  confiscating  the  estates  of  those 
in  rebellion  and  freeing  such  of  their  slaves  as  should  escape 
to  another  state,  or  take  refuge  within  the  lines  of  the  Union 
army,  and  authorizing  the  President  to  use  "  as  many  per 
sons  of  African  descent  as  he  may  deem  necessary  and 
proper  for  the  suppression  of  this  rebellion."  x  This  act  in 
creased  the  fear  that  Ohio  would  become  the  abode  of  the 
negroes  as  they  escaped  from  the  South ;  and  some  race  riots 
which  broke  out  during  the  summer  in  Cincinnati  and 
Toledo  tended  to  confirm  this  feeling.  When  the  Proclama 
tion  of  Emancipation  came  in  the  fall,  its  effect  on  the  ap 
proaching  elections  was  not  difficult  to  foretell.  To  turn 
from  a  platform  calling,  solely  for  a  vigorous  prosecution 
of  the  war,  to  the  indorsement  of  any  such  policy  as  emanci 
pation,  was  something  which  many  of  the  new  party  were 
not  prepared  to  do.2 

1McPherson,  Histoty  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  196. 

2H.  S.  Bundy,  Union  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  nth  district 
which  included  the  river  counties  from  Gallia  to  Brown,  wrote  October 
3d:  "The  President's  proclamation  has  come  just  in  the  nick  of  time 
to  save  the  country  perhaps,  while  from  present  appearances  it  will  de- 


106          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [242 

Finally,  the  arrest  of  several  citizens  of  Ohio  during-  the 
summer  and  fall,  and  their  confinement  without  trial,  laid 
the  administration  open  to  the  charge  of  violating  one  of 
the  fundamental  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution. 
The  most  prominent  case  was  that  of  Dr.  Edson  B.  Olds 
of  Lancaster.  He  was  arrested  at  his  home  on  August 
1 2th  at  the  request  of  Governor  Tod,  on  a  warrant  from  the 
War  Department,  issued  under  an  order  of  the  Secretary  for 
the  arrest  of  persons  discouraging  enlistments.  Having 
served  three  terms  in  the  state  legislature  and  three  in  Con 
gress,  he  was  again  a  candidate  for  the  nomination  for  the 
latter  position,  but  was  defeated  in  the  convention.  Dur 
ing  his  preliminary  campaign  he  was  very  bold  in  his  at 
tacks  on  the  administration,  reaching  a  climax  in  a  speech 
delivered  in  his  home  county  on  July  26th,  in  which  he  as 
serted  that  the  Abolition  party  had  brought  on  the  war  and 
was  at  that  time  in  control  of  the  Lincoln  administration, 
and  said  that  before  he  would  enlist  or  before  he  would  in 
duce  a  single  Democrat  to  enlist,  he  would  first  know  what 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  fighting  for.  He  could  see  in  a  vision  the 
ballot  boxes  of  the  country  baptized  in  blood;  and  if  the 
war  was  no  longer  to  be  prosecuted  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  Constitution  as  it  is  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union  as 
it  was,  and  was  to  become  an  Abolition  war,  the  Democrats 
would  refuse  to  volunteer  and  the  draft  would  have  to  be 
resorted  to  in  order  to  raise  the  six  hundred  thousand  sol 
diers  which  the  President  had  asked  for.  When  Olds  was 
arrested  the  charge  as  given  in  the  warrant  was  disloyalty, 
using  treasonable  language  and  interfering  with  enlistments. 
He  was  taken  to  Fort  Lafayette  in  New  York  Harbor  and 

feat  me  and  every  other    Union    candidate    for    Congress    alcng    the 
border.  The  Democrats  of  the  district  take  a  position  against  the 

proclamation,  including  a  majority  of  last  year's  Union  Democrats,  and 
unless  matters  improve,  I  will  be  defeated."     Chase  Papers,  MS. 


243  ]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  107 

kept  in  confinement  until  December  I5th,  when  he  was  set 
free. 

John  W.  Kees,  editor  of  the  Circleville  Watchman,  was 
arrested  on  June  29th,  a  few  days  before  the  Democratic 
state  convention  was  held,  and  at  a  time  when  he  was  being 
considered  for  the  nomination  for  secretary  of  state.  His 
editorials  for  some  time  previous  had  been  very  violent. 
In  one  he  had  asked :  "  Why  don't  the  men  of  New  Orleans 
shoot  the  nefarious  wretch  [Butler]  like  they  would  a 
reptile  or  dog?"  In  Canton,  on  October  I2th,  Archibald 
McGregor,  editor  of  the  Stark  County  Democrat,  and  Peter 
N.  Reitzell  were  arrested  on  the  charge  of  inciting  resist 
ance  to  the  draft  and  counselling  drafted  men  not  to  respond. 
They  were  taken  to  Camp  Mansfield  near  by  and  held  in 
confinement  for  about  a  month,  when  they  were  discharged 
on  their  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance.1 

In  all,  eleven  such  arrests  were  made  within  the  state.  In 
a  proclamation  issued  September  24th,  the  President  gave 
the  Executive  sanction  to  these  orders  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  made  "all  persons  discouraging  voluntary  enlistments, 
resisting  military  drafts,  or  guilty  of  any  disloyal  practices, 
.  .  .  subject  to  martial  law  and  liable  to  trial  and  punish 
ment  by  courts  martial  or  military  commissions  "  and  sus 
pended  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  respect  to  them.2 

The  lack  of  confidence  in  the  administration  iti  its  con 
duct  of  the  war,  the  policy  of  emancipation,  and  the  ar 
bitrary  arrests,  worked  for  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  the 
Union  party  in  the  North  in  the  fall  elections.  To  these 
influences  must  be  added  Sn  Ohio  the  strong  feeling  against 
negro  immigration,  which  was  especially  aroused  by  the 

1  Report  of  Committee  on   Military   Arrests,   House  Journal,  1863, 
App.,  p.  63. 

2  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  vol.  ii,  p.  239.     See  also  Rhodes,  History 
of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  iv,  p.  169. 


108          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [244 

prospect  of  being  taxed  to  provide  funds  for  compensating 
the  slave  owners  for  the  loss  of  their  slaves,  as  provided  in 
the  act  freeing  the  slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
in  the  proposition  of  the  President  made  to  the  border 
states;  the  failure  to  pass  an  act  permitting  the  soldiers 
in  the  field  to  vote;  and  the  dissension  within  the  Union 
party,  caused  by  the  feeling  that  the  organization  had  been 
used  by  the  politicians  for  the  furtherance  of  selfish  in 
terests. 

Armstrong  was  elected  over  Kennon  for  secretary  of 
state  by  a  majority  of  5,557  in  a  total  vote  of  363,070,  a 
slight  increase  over  the  vote  of  the  previous  year.  The 
majorities  on  the  state  ticket  reversed  those  of  the  elec 
tion  of  1 86 1  in  twenty-one  counties,  fourteen  of  which  had 
been  Democratic  in  1859.  In  the  Democratic  counties  there 
was  a  decrease  in  the  total  vote  with  largely  increased 
Democratic  majorities,  and  this  was  true  also  in  the  south 
ern  counties  which  had  been  carried  by  the  Unionists  in 
1 86 1.  Even  the  Reserve  showed  a  falling-off  in  the  Union 
vote.  In  the  congressional  elections,  notwithstanding  the 
redistricting  of  the  state  by  the  Union  legislature  in  the 
early  part  of  the  year,  the  Democrats  carried  fourteen  of 
the  nineteen  districts.  S.  S.  Cox,  who  had  waged  a  vigor 
ous  campaign  against  his  opponent,  was  able  to  overcome 
the  majority  against  him  in  his  new  district,  but  Vallan- 
digham,  although  carrying  the  counties  of  his  old  district 
by  an  increase  of  five  hundred  votes  over  his  majority  of 
1860,  was  defeated  by  the  vote  of  Warren  county. 

The  radical  papers  made  great  efforts  to  protect  the 
emancipation  policy,  holding  that  the  Proclamation  had  not 
been  issued  long  enough  before  the  election  to  be  made  a 
rallying  point  for  the  Union  party,  or  an  object  of  con 
certed  attack  for  the  opposition.  They  ascribed  the  defeat 
to  the  lack  of  military  successes  and  to  the  assumption  of 


245]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO 

arbitrary  powers  by  the  President  in  the  matter  of  political 
arrests.1 

The  charge  was  also  made  and  persistently  maintained 
by  the  radicals,  that  the  defeat  was  due  largely  to  the 
fact  that,  while  large  numbers  of  men  of  Republican 
antecedents  had  enlisted  and  were  out  of  the  state  where 
they  could  not  vote,  most  of  the  Democrats  had  staid  at 
home.  The  facts,  however,  do  not  support  this  charge.2 
In  the  first  days  of  the  war,  party  feeling  did  not  manifest 
itself  in  filling  the  regiments,  and  many  of  the  officers  were 
taken  from  the  ranks  of  the  Democrats.  In  1862  when  the 
first  draft  was  ordered,  the  Democratic  counties  were  as 
far  along  with  their  quota  as  those  which  had  been  Repub 
lican.  Again,  when  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  was 
issued,  the  feeling  toward  it  in  the  army  was  no  more 
friendly  than  in  the  state,  while  the  attitude  toward  the  ad 
ministration  was  equally  hostile. 

EFFORTS  TO  STRENGTHEN  THE  PARTY  AFTER  THE  DEFEAT  OF 

1862 

The  defeat  left  the  Union  party  in  a  peculiar  condition. 
It  was  out  of  touch  with  the  administration  on  the  eman 
cipation  policy,  and  apparently  discredited  before  the  coun 
try  on  its  war  platform.  The  Democrats  asserted  boldly 
that  the  election  meant  an  endorsement  of  Democratic  prin 
ciples  and  a  popular  verdict  against  the  war.  Many  mem- 

1  See  editorials  in  Cleveland  Leader,   Nov.  I5th,  and  in  Cincinnati 
Gazette,   Oct.    I7th.     Yet  the    Cleveland  Leader,   on    September   16, 
1867,  in  commenting  on  this  election,  said:  "  In  1862  the  Emancipation 
Proclamation  was  issued.     This  frightened  the  conservatives  of  south 
ern  Ohio,  while  the  radicals  of  the  Reserve,  too  confident  of  success  in 
any  event,  did  not  come  out  in  strength  to  the  polls.     The  result  was 
the  Democratic  majority  of  five  thousand." 

2  See  speech  of  James  E.  Campbell  of  Ohio,  in  House  of  Representa 
tives,  June  16,  1886.     Cong.  Globe,  49th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  57/0. 


HO          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [246 

bers  of  the  new  party  returned  to  their  former  Democratic 
affiliation,  and  the  Plain  Dealer  withdrew  its  support,  hold 
ing  that  Lincoln  had  yielded  to  the  dictation  of  the  Aboli 
tionists,  and  feeling1  "  that  to  remain  longer  silent  would 
be  to  give  ourselves  up,  body  and  soul,  to  the  servile  insur 
rectionists,  in  which  name  we  greet  all  who  would  bid  the 
slaves  rise  and  indiscriminately  butcher  the  people  of  the 
South."  *  There  seemed  no  possibility  of  keeping  the  party 
together  longer  on  the  sole  platform  of  a  "  vigorous  prose 
cution  of  the  war." 

The  General  Assembly  met  for  its  adjourned  session  on 
January  5,  1863,  with  the  Senatorial  question  still  unsolved, 
and  the  President's  final  Proclamation  of  Emancipation 
before  the  country.  Governor  Tod's  annual  message  was 
an  excellent  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the  party,  and  a 
manly  explanation  of  the  proceedings  of  the  previous  year. 
From  the  beginning  of  his  term  of  office,  he  had  devoted 
his  entire  time  and  energy  to  the  support  of  the  adminis 
tration  and  the  welfare  of  the  soldiers  of  the  state,  sending 
agents  and  supplies  to  the  battlefields  and  directing  meas 
ures  for  the  care  of  the  sick  and  wounded.  Among  the 
governors  of  the  northern  states  he  was  foremost  in  bring 
ing  the  resources  of  his  state  to  the  aid  of  the  President  in 
his  efforts  to  put  down  what  Tod  always  termed  the  "  un 
holy  rebellion  ".  However,  in  his  earnestness  and  impa 
tience,  he  often  assumed  a  dictatorial  attitude  which  at 
times  made  his  relations  with  the  legislature  unpleasant,  and 
caused  many  conflicts  between  the  civil  and  military  au 
thorities  at  Columbus. 

In  his  message,  he  declared  that  the  objects  of  the  war 
had  not  been  changed,  but  that  it  was  still  being  waged  to 
maintain  the  government  as  it  had  been  handed  down  by  the 

1  Editorial,  November  3,  1862. 


247]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  in 

fathers,  with  all  the  rights  of  the  states  preserved.  "  Sin 
cerely  believing  that  the  President  and  those  who  surround 
him  have  acted  solely  with  a  view  to  restoring  peace  and 
harmony  to  our  distracted  government  and  to  all  its  citi 
zens  whether  north  or  south/'  he  had  rendered  them  all 
the  aid  in  his  power,  and  had  acquiesced  in  the  orders  for 
the  military  arrests  and  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  He  justified  the  proceeding  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  necessary,  "  to  enable  the  several  state  authorities  to 
raise  their  quota  of  troops."  Lastly,  he  urged  the  passage 
of  an  act  allowing  the  soldiers  in  the  field  to  vote.  No  men 
tion  was  made  of  the  recent  Proclamation  or  the  acts  of 
Congress  on  confiscation  and  emancipation.  So  far  as  the 
governor  was  concerned,  therefore,  the  Union  party  should 
stand  in  the  future  on  its  original  platform.1 

The  Unionists,  on  their  assembling  at  the  capital,  pro 
ceeded  at  once  to  deal  with  the  Senatorial  question.  There 
was  little  change  in  the  situation  since  the  adjournment  in 
the  preceding  April,  except  that  Delano  had  been  eliminated 
from  the  contest.  Chase  had  kept  in  close  touch  with  de 
velopments,  and  hoped  that,  while  not  appearing  to  be  a 
candidate  against  Wade,  he  might  be  named  as  a  compro 
mise  candidate  when  it  was  found  that  Wade  could  not  be 
chosen.2  His  friends  were  trying  to  get  the  support  of  the 
Democratic  element  of  the  party  through  Groesbeck.  On 
January  I3th,  this  element  held  a  conference,  and  drew  up 
a  request  that  the  nomination  of  Wade  be  not  insisted  upon, 
but  that  some  other  Unionist  of  Republican  antecedents  be 
taken.  This  was  presented  in  a  Union  caucus  held  two 
days  later,  but  no  promise  was  made,  and  when  a  proposi 
tion  was  made  to  proceed  to  ballot,  most  of  the  Democratic 

1  Executive  Documents,  1862,  pt.  i,  p.  5. 

2  Parsons  to  Chase,  October  13,  1862.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 


112          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [248 

Unionists  withdrew.  An  adjournment  was  taken  until  the 
next  evening,  when  sixty-six  of  the  Union  members  assem 
bled.  The  Delano  forces  went  over  to  Wade  and  he  was 
nominated  on  the  first  ballot,  receiving  fifty-six  votes.1 
When  the  vote  was  taken  in  the  legislature,  he  received 
seventy-five  of  the  Union  votes;  fifteen  gave  their  support 
to  Ewing  and  one  to  Schenck.  The  Democrats  cast  their 
votes  for  Jewett. 

There  was  much  pressure  brought  to  bear,  both  from  the 
radicals  and  the  Democrats,  to  get  an  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  President's  Proclamation,  but  no  action  was  taken 
on  any  of  the  resolutions  which  were  presented  on  the  sub 
ject.  However,  a  new  pledge  was  made  in  the  name  of  the 
people  of  the  state  to  render  the  administration  all  possible 
aid  both  morally  and  physically  in  its  efforts  to  put  down 
the  rebellion  and  restore  the  Union,  and  a  protest  was  en 
tered  against  the  proposition  to  divide  the  loyal  states  with 
the  object  of  attaching  any  portion  of  them  to  the  so-called 
southern  Confederacy.2 

With  the  assistance  of  Chase^  his  friends  were  able  to 
have  a  resolution  adopted  giving  a  qualified  endorsement 
to  the  national  banking  measure  then  before  Congress.3 
The  banking  interests  of  the  state  were  opposed  to  chang 
ing  the  system,  and  it  was  only  with  some  persuasion  that 
they  were  brought  to  give  their  consent  to  the  resolution.4 

1  The  Chase  men  thought  this  was  brought  about  through  some 
understanding  between  Wade  and  the  Delano  forces  made  beforehand. 
Parsons  to  Chase,  December  6,  1862.  Chase  Papers,  MS. 

*  Laws  of  Ohio ,  vol.  Ix,  p.  147. 

'Letter  of  J.  Q.  Smith  to  Chase,  February  6,  1863.  Chase  was  asked 
to  draw  up  a  resolution  such  as  he  would  like  to  have  adopted  and  send 
it  to  them  with  any  suggestions. 

4  Letter  of  Peter  Zinn  to  Chase,  February  24,  1863.  "It  required 
some  management  on  our  part  as  the  bankers  on  the  committee  were 
opposed  to  the  plan."  Chase  Papers,  MS. 


249]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO 

The  matter  of  giving  the  franchise  to  the  soldiers  was 
taken  up  and  an  act  passed  providing  for  the  holding  of 
elections  at  certain  times  and  places,  and  putting  the  con 
trol  of  them  in  the  hands  of  three  judges  chosen  by  the 
electors  present  when  the  polls  were  opened.1  The  bills 
proposed  in  the  first  session  had  designated  the  commis 
sioned  officers  of  each  company  as  judges,  and  the  principal 
excuse  given  by  the  members  in  the  campaign  for  not  hav 
ing  enacted  one  of  the  measures,  was  that  this  plan  would 
not  have  ensured  free  elections  and,  since  the  session  was 
just  closing  when  the  bills  were  presented,  there  had  been 
no  time  to  remedy  the  defects. 

On  the  whole  the  session  was  one  of  the  most  strenuous 
of  the  period.  In  addition  to  the  woeful  lack  of  harmony 
among  the  Unionists,  the  Democrats,  emboldened  by  their 
success  in  the  elections,  declared  that  the  new  party  was 
discredited  before  the  country  and  no  longer  represented 
the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  the  state.  As  a  conse 
quence,  their  attacks  on  the  administration  became  more 
unrestrained  and  defiant. 

Outside  of  the  Assembly,  while  much  was  being  done  to 
bolster  up  the  party  to  enable  it  to  resist  the  attacks  of  the 
Democrats,  a  matter  came  up  which  increased  the  dissension 
within  its  ranks.  In  January  the  auditor  of  state,  R.  W. 
Taylor,  who  had  been  elected  as  a  Republican  in  1859,  was 
tendered  a  position  by  Chase  in  the  Treasury  Department 
at  Washington.  At  once  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  gov 
ernor  by  some  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  present 
ing  a  name  for  the  vacancy,  but  it  was  found  that  the  place 
had  already  been  offered  to  Kennon,  the  Democratic  Unionist 
who  had  headed  the  ticket  in  1862.  At  the  time  all  the  im 
portant  offices  except  those  of  auditor  and  lieutenant  gov- 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ix,  p.  80. 


114          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [250 

ernor  were  in  the  hands  either  of  Democrats  or  of  Union 
ists  of  Democratic  antecedents,  and  the  action  of  the  gov 
ernor  brought  down  a  storm  of  protest  from  the  Republi 
can  element  on  the  ground  of  unfair  dealing.  As  the  Ohio 
State  Journal  expressed  it : 

It  may  be  said  that  the  Republicans  should  disregard  old  party 
differences  and  preferences  and  accept  a  Union  man  of  Demo 
cratic  antecedents,  and  so  they  have  and  so  they  would  again. 
But  might  they  not  be  justified  in  asking  the  Governor  to  do 
the  same  thing  instead  of  filling  all  the  Republican  vacancies  in 
executive  offices  by  appointment  from  among  his  old  Demo 
cratic  friends.1 

Chase  attempted  to  discipline  Tod  for  his  action  but  failed 
to  make  any  impression.2  As  a  result,  Taylor  remained  in 
the  office  until  April  when,  Kennon  having  been  disposed 
of  in  the  meantime  by  being  appointed  a  paymaster  in  the 
army,  he  resigned  and  the  chief  clerk  in  the  office  filled  out 
the  term. 

Editorial,  February  3,  1863. 

1  Tod's  reply  was  characteristic:  "  I  pledged  the  Union-loving  people 
of  Ohio,  when  a  candidate  for  their  suffrages,  that  I  would  ignore  all 
party  and  discharge  the  duties  of  the  position  with  an  eye  single  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Union.  This  pledge  I  have  thus  far  redeemed,  and 
with  God's  blessing,  shall  continue  to  do  so,  during  the  short  time  I 
have  yet  to  remain.  This  determination  prevents  my  yielding  to  the 
demands  made  by  Auditor  Taylor  and  yourself." 

His  secretary,  Judge  Hoffman,  also  wrote  regarding  the  affair,  de 
fending  the  course  of  the  governor,  and  showing  that  in  his  appoint 
ments  as  a  whole,  he  had  selected  more  men  of  Republican  antecedents 
than  otherwise.  He  blamed  the  Journal  and  Leader  for  attempting  to 
play  into  the  hands  of  the  old  Republicans.  As  to  Tod's  policy,  he 
said:  "  His  object  and  desire  have  been  to  bury  out  of  sight  all  old  party 
feeling  and  prejudice  during  this  rebellion.  The  things  that  have  vexed 
him  most  have  been  the  efforts  of  some  old  line  Democrats  to  keep  up 
their  party,  and  the  efforts  of  some  unwise  Republicans  to  cut  loose  from 
and  break  up  the  Union  party."  Chase  Papers,  MS. 


25 1  ]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  1 1 5 

This  petty  bickering  in  the  ranks  of  a  party  formed  with 
the  avowed  purpose  of  allaying  all  partisan  feeling,  added 
to  the  persistent  calls  of  the  Peace  Democracy  for  com 
promise  and  a  cessation  of  hostilities,  the  activities  of  their 
secret  societies  and  the  boldness  of  their  open  attacks  on  the 
administration,  both  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders  in  mass 
meetings  and  in  the  editorials  of  their  press;  all  these 
tended  to  bring  the  Union  movement  to  the  lowest  ebb  it 
reached  during  the  war,  and  to  create  among  the  troops  in 
the  field  not  only  a  feeling  of  rage  toward  the  traitors  of 
the  North  for  their  "  fire  in  the  rear,"  but  also  one  of  dis 
couragement  at  the  apparent  desertion  of  their  friends.  In 
resolutions  which  the  Ohio  regiments  sent  home  denouncing 
the  traitors,  they  also  deplored  the  fact  that  party  spirit  and 
dissension  were  crushing  out  all  Union  sentiment,  and  ad 
monished  the  people  to  lay  aside  their  disputes  and  act  as 
patriots.1  Some  of  these  resolutions  were  sent  directly  to 
the  legislature,  and  brought  forth  a  response  from  the 
Union  members  acknowledging  the  justice  of  the  rebuke.2 

In  response  to  a  set  of  resolutions  and  an  address  from 
the  officers  of  the  Ohio  regiments  at  Murfreesboro,  a  mass 
meeting  was  held  at  Cincinnati  on  February  23d.  Groes- 
beck  presided  and  Governor  Morton  and  Ex-Governor 
Wright  of  Indiana,  with  General  Lew  Wallace  assisted  Gov 
ernors  Dennison  and  Tod  in  making  an  appeal  to  the  people 
of  the  state  to  unite  in  support  of  the  army  and  the  ad 
ministration.3  A  similar  meeting  was  held  at  Columbus  on 
March  3d  at  which  Governor  Andrew  Johnson  made  the 
principal  address.  Holding  that  he  was  still  a  Democrat, 
but  for  the  Union,  he  denounced  all  Democrats  who  were 

1  House  Journal,  1863,  p.  267.     Ohio  State  Journal,  March  26th. 
*Ohio  State  Journal,  April  i6th. 
1 Cincinnati  Commercial,  March  4th. 


Il6          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [252 

talking  of  compromise  as  traitors  to  their  country.  While 
he  was  not  in  favor  of  carrying  on  the  war  for  the  freeing 
of  the  slaves,  yet  if  in  crushing  the  rebellion  it  was  neces 
sary  to  let  the  slaves  go,  he  was  willing  to  do  it.1  Other 
similar  meetings  were  held  in  different  cities  of  the  state 
with  encouraging  results,  so  that  Tod  could  write  to  Gen 
eral  Sherman,  March  ist:  "  You  will  be  glad  to  know  that 
the  feeling  in  Ohio*  relating  to  the  more  vigorous  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war  has  greatly  improved  within  the  past  few 
weeks."  2  The  spring  elections  also  gave  evidence  of  a 
returning  enthusiasm  among  the  Unionists. 

In  order  to  bind  the  party  more  closely  together,  the 
movement  set  on  foot  at  Philadelphia  for  the  organization 
of  Union  Leagues  was  taken  up  in  Ohio.  The  Cleveland 
Leader  first  endorsed  the  plan.  It  urged  the  necessity  of 
some  organized  effort  to  counteract  the  evils  of  the  Copper 
head  combinations,  and  called  upon  every  county  and  town 
ship  to  organize  a  League  at  once,  with  the  one  platform 
of  a  hearty  support  of  the  government  in  suppressing  the 
rebellion,  and  with  the  purpose  of  supplying  the  public  and 
the  soldiers  with  loyal  books  and  newspapers  and  of  hold 
ing  Union  meetings  throughout  the  state.3  The  suggestion 
was  taken  up  in  many  parts  of  the  state  and  not  only  were 
local  Leagues  organized,  but  a  state  organization  was  per 
fected.*  The  effect  of  this  movement  was  first  seen  in  the 
results  of  the  spring  elections.  On  May  2Oth,  a  large  mass 
meeting  of  the  League  was  held  at  Cleveland.  It  was  ad 
dressed  by  Montgomery  Blair,  Bingham,  and  others  of  na 
tional  prominence,  while  letters  were  read  from  Senator 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,  March  4,  1863. 

* Executive  Documents,  1863,  pt.  i,  p.  164. 

*Cf.  edition  of  February  28,  1863. 

4  Constitution  in  Ohio  Statesman,  April  26,  1863. 


253]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IX  OHIO  117 

Sumner  and  Secretary  Chase  expressing  regret  at  their  in 
ability  to  attend.  The  one  sentiment  of  the  meeting  was 
the  support  of  the  administration  in  all  its  efforts  to  sup 
press  the  rebellion.  A  resolution  was  adopted  calling  on 
the  President  to  carry  out  the  sentence  which  had  just  been 
pronounced  on  Vallandigham.1 

But  the  thing  of  prime  importance  was  to  find  a  candidate 
on  whom  all  the  elements  of  the  party  could  unite,  and  this 
was  a  much  more  serious  undertaking  than  it  had  been  in 
1 86 1.  Governor  Tod,  so  far  as  the  Wade  and  Chase  forces 
were  concerned,  was  eliminated  early  in  the  year,  because 
of  his  action  in  appointing  Kennon,  and  his  refusal  to  ad 
vance  to  the  position  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,2 
while  his  part  in  the  military  arrests  of  the  preceding  year 
weakened  his  popularity  with  the  conservatives.  Various 
names  were  suggested,  including  those  of  Bingham,  Hor- 
ton,  Delano,  and  Groesbeck,  but  no  agreement  could  be 
reached.  The  most  available  candidate  seemed  to  be  Stan 
ley  Matthews,  who  was  just  leaving  the  army  to  assume 
the  duties  of  judge  of  the  superior  court  at  Cincinnati.  He 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  165.  The  Cleveland  Herald  took  a  stand  against  the 
organization  of  the  Leagues  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  attempt  to 
do  in  an  indirect  and  subtile  manner  what  had  been  more  openly  tried 
before  the  campaign  of  the  preceding  year,  namely,  to  repudiate  the 
Union  party  and  secure  the  spoils  of  office.  See  editorial,  May  21, 
1863. 

'The  question  of  reviving  the  Republican  party  was  seriously  discussed 
by  the  radicals  and  urged  by  the  Ashtabula  Sentinel,  but  they  could  not 
get  the  cooperation  of  the  conservatives.  Bascom  of  the  Xenia  Torch 
light  wrote  Chase,  February  i2th:  "I  am  not  clear  as  to  the  future; 
there  are  difficulties  about  abandoning  the  Union  party,  which  may  be 
insurmountable  at  present  .  .  .  Governor  Tod  has  killed  himself  with 
the  Republicans  by  the  appointment  of  Kennon  .  .  .  It  is  such  a  breach 
of  faith  ...  as  cannot  and  will  not  be  overlooked.  My  present  impres 
sion  is  that  we  shall  go  with  the  Union  party  this  fall."  Chase  Papers, 
MS. 


Il8          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [254 

was  acceptable  to  the  Chase  men,1  and  could,  it  was  thought, 
carry  the  conservative  vote,  but  his  name  was  dropped  some 
time  before  the  convention  was  held. 

Tod,  in  an  address  made  in  his  home  county  early  in 
April,  announced  his  candidacy  for  renomination.2  With 
this  the  radical  papers,  especially  in  the  Reserve,  came  out 
openly  in  their  opposition  to  him.  As  the  Cleveland 
Leader  expressed  it : 

We  need  for  a  standard-bearer,  a  true  man,  and  by  a  true  man 
we  mean  one  who  lives  in  the  present  and  not  in  the  past  .  .  . 
a  man  whose  principles  will  plead  trumpet-tongued  with  the 
earnest  men  of  the  State  in  support  of  his  election.  No  milk- 
and-water  man,  ...  no  mere  conservative  man,  will  be  able 
to  lead  us  to  victory.5 

The  Union  League  refused  to  support  him,  and  through 
its  organization,  was  the  principal  cause  of  his  defeat  in  the 
convention. 

This  failure  to  unite  on  a  suitable  candidate,  seemed  to 
presage  an  open  fight  in  the  convention.  The  call  was 
issued  on  March  3Oth,  and  the  date  fixed  for  the  conven 
tion  was  June  1 7th.  The  delegates  were  to  be  apportioned 
among  the  counties  on  the  basis  of  the  votes  cast  for  the 
Union  ticket  in  1861,  instead  of  the  aggregate  vote.  An 
unusual  effort  was  put  forth  to  make  the  event  an  occasion 
for  a  great  revival  of  Unionism,  and  with  this  in  mind  a 
supplementary  call  was  issued,  June  8th,  to  all  "  uncondi 
tional  Union  men  "  to1  meet  on  the  date  set  in  a  grand  mass 

*J.  H.  Geiger  in  a  letter  to  Chase,  April  loth,  proposed  his  name. 
Chase  wrote  Matthews,  April  i6th,  asking  him  what  his  sentiments 
were  on  the  matter.  There  is  no  answer  from  Matthews  in  the  Chase 
papers. 

1  Crisis,  May  13,  1863. 

*  Editorial,  June  6th. 


255]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  iiy 

convention,  "  to  aid  and  encourage  each  other  by  their  pres 
ence  and  counsel."  This  effort  was  increased  after  June 
nth,  when  the  Democrats,  amid  great  enthusiasm,  nomin 
ated  Vallandigham  and  Pugh  to  head  their  ticket. 

An  unexpected  development  took  place  a  few  days  before 
the  assembling  of  the  convention.  John  Brough,  president 
of  the  Bellefontaine  and  Indianapolis  railroad,  with  head 
quarters  in  Indianapolis  but  maintaining  a  residence  in 
Cleveland,  was  brought  forward  as  a  candidate.1  He  was 
a  native  of  Marietta,  and  had  been  prominent  in  Democratic 
circles,  and  editor  of  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  in  his  earlier 
years,  but  had  not  taken  an  active  part  in  politics  since 
1848.  On  June  loth,  he  delivered  an  address  at  his  old 
home  on  the  questions  of  the  day,  in  which  he  expressed  a 
strong  determination  to  support  the  administration  in  the 
conduct  of  the  war.  He  had  been  a  life-long  Democrat,  and 
had  opposed  Lincoln's  election  and  probably  would  not  vote 
for  him  at  any  time;  but  Lincoln,  he  said,  was  the  President 
and  the  head  of  the  government,  and  "  like  a  soldier  in  the 
ranks  I  hold  it  to  be  my  duty  to  obey  him,  my  commanding 
officer,  in  all  things  without  questioning  his  policy  in  this 
great  contest."  As  to  slavery,  he  had  no  quarrel  with  it  as 
a  domestic  institution,  but  it  had  assumed  a  political  char 
acter  and  because  of  this,  it  must  perish  with  the  war.  He 
had  not  thought  Lincoln  wise  in  issuing  his  Proclamation, 

1The  author  was  not  able  to  ascertain  with  certainty  who  were  re 
sponsible  for  the  launching  of  the  Brough  boom.  Gen.  Wright  in  Ohio 
Arch,  and  Hist.  Society  Publications,  vol.  viii,  p.  122,  says  it  was  con 
ceived  by  ''one  member  of  the  Legislature  from  Washington  county, 
together  with  a  gentleman  of  this  city  (Columbus),  who  was  a  poli 
tician  and  had  favored  the  nomination  and  election  of  Mr.  Tod,  .  .  . 
but  had  become  offended  at  the  Government  failing  to  appoint  some 
friend  of  his  to  some  position."  The  Chase  men,  as  their  correspond 
ence  shows,  were  not  on  the  inside  of  the  affair,  and  the  nomination 
came  as  a  surprise  to  them.  The  Democratic  papers  of  the  day  held 
that  the  railroads  were  back  of  the  boom."  See  Crisis,  July  8th. 


120          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [256 

but  felt  that  it  might  work  out  for  the  best  after  all.  He 
justified  the  taking  of  the  slaves  because,  if  property,  the 
rules  of  war  allowed  it,  and  because  each  slave  working  on 
a  plantation  was  worth  two  soldiers  fighting  in  the  field. 
On  the  matter  of  military  arrests,  he  held  that  there  was  no 
doubt  of  the  government's  power  to  protect  itself;  and  as 
for  peace,  since  the  southern  leaders  had  howled  down  all 
peace  propositions,  he  did  not  see  how  an  honorable  peace 
could  come  except  by  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword.1 

The  two*  Cincinnati  papers,  the  Commercial  and  the 
Gazette,  printed  the  speech  in  full,  and  began  a  vigorous 
campaign  for  Brough.  The  Cleveland  Leader  took  it  up, 
and  called  for  a  mass  meeting  in  that  city  to  endorse  him 
for  the  nomination.  The  radicals,  too  few  to  bring  about 
the  nomination  of  one  of  their  own  number,  accepted  him 
as  their  candidate  because  of  his  sentiments  on  the  Proc 
lamation,  and  the  Union  League  threw  its  support  to  him. 
Tod  carried  his  fight  into  the  convention,  however,  many 
of  the  delegations  which  had  been  selected  before  the  Brough 
boom  was  launched,  being  pledged  to  him.  On  the  first 
ballot  he  received  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  votes;  but 
Brough  received  two  hundred  and  twenty-six  and  thus  was 
nominated.2 

The  resolutions,  as  reported  to  the  convention  by  Wade, 
denounced  the  Calhoun  doctrine  as  reiterated  by  the  Demo 
crats  in  their  platform,  and  declared  that  the  war  must  go 
on  with  the  utmost  vigor  until  the  authority  of  the  national 
government  should  be  reestablished.  All  party  lines  were 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  June  12,  1863. 

2  Tod  took  his  defeat  rather  hard.     Writing  to  Gov.  Andrews  of  Mass. 
he  said:  "  You  will  have  heard  of  my  defeat  in  the  Union  Convention 
recently  held  in  this  city.     It  is  proper  that  I  inform  you  that  personal 
considerations  alone  caused  my  defeat."    Executive  Documents,  1863, 
pt.  i.  p.  274. 


257]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  121 

to  be  obliterated  except  "  the  great  line  between  those  who 
sustain  the  Government  of  the  country,  and  those  who  op 
pose  it;  between  those  who  rejoice  in  the  triumph  of  our 
arms,  and  those  who  rejoice  in  the  triumph  of  the  enemy." 
Sympathy  was  expressed  for  the  army  in  its  hardships,  and 
assistance  promised  to  it,  and  to  the  families  of  those  who 
fell.  "  Confiding  in  the  honesty,  patriotism  and  good  sense 
of  the  President,"  support  was  pledged  to  him  in  his  earn 
est  efforts  to  put  down  the  rebellion.  Governor  Tod  was 
consoled  with  a  resolution  recognizing  him  as  "  an  honest 
and  able  public  servant,"  and  approving  his  official  conduct. 

Outside  of  their  satisfaction  with  the  candidate  for  gov 
ernor,  the  radicals  derived  little  from  the  convention.  A 
proposition  to  include  in  the  platform  a  plank  on  emanci 
pation  received  only  five  out  of  nineteen  votes  in  the  com 
mittee,1  while  their  candidate  for  judge  of  the  supreme 
court,  Bingham,  was  defeated  by  Hocking  Hunter,  a  con 
servative. 

The  energetic  labors  of  the  Union  leaders  in  the  campaign, 
assisted  in  every  way  by  the  administration  and  fortified 
by  the  victories  at  Gettysburg  and  Vicksburg,  resulted  in 
the  defeat  of  the  Vallandigham  ticket  in  the  October  elec 
tion  by  over  a  hundred  thousand  majority,  after  the  most 
exciting  campaign  in  the  history  of  the  state.  With  this 
result,  support  of  the  administration  in  its  war  policy  be 
came  solidified  in  the  state.  The  Union  party  passed  its 
period  of  precarious  existence,  and  there  was  no  further  talk 
of  its  disbandment.  The  details  of  the  campaign  can  best 
be  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Peace  Democracy, 
and  hence  will  be  discussed  in  the  next  chapter. 

THE  UNION   PARTY  IN   THE  CAMPAIGN   OF    1864 

The  legislature,  chosen  in  the  election,  stood  overwhelm- 
1  Ashley  to  Chase,  June  23,  1863.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 


122          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [258 

ingly  Unionist.  In  the  Senate  there  were  twenty-nine 
Unionists  and  five  Democrats,  while  in  the  House  there 
were  seventy-four  Unionists  and  twenty-three  Democrats. 
The  work  of  the  first  session,  which  convened  in  January, 
1864,  was  largely  of  a  routine  nature,  and  it  was  carried 
on  with  little  show  o<f  opposition.  The  resolution  by  which 
the  Corwin  Amendment  was  ratified  in  1861  1  was  rescinded, 
on  the  ground  that  the  necessity  for  such  an  amendment  had 
been  removed  by  the  events  of  the  war,  and  that  the  reso 
lution  under  the  circumstances  "  is  an  impediment  to  the 
free  action  of  Congress  in  the  present  exigencies  of  the 
country  as  well  as  a  misrepresentation  of  the  public  senti 
ment  of  the  people  of  Ohio."  2  On  the  retirement  of  Gov 
ernor  Tod,  the  thanks  of  the  Assembly  were  extended  to 
him  for  his  devotion  in  ministering  to  the  sick  and  wounded 
soldiers  and  his  assistance  in  providing  for  their  families, 
for  his  speedy  suppression  of  disloyalty  and  resistance  to 
the  laws,  for  his  deep-toned  loyalty,  and  for  the  full  and 
faithful  discharge  of  the  trust  committed  to  him  by  the 
people.3 

With  the  adoption  of  resolutions  in  several  of  the  north 
ern  states  calling  for  the  renomination  of  Lincoln,  the  ques 
tion  of  a  Presidential  candidate  was  injected  into  Ohio 
politics  early  in  the  year.  Chase,  as  has  been  noted,  had 
been  working  among  his  Ohio  friends  for  more  than  a  year 
with  a  view  to  uniting  the  state  in  his  support.  With  the 
convening  of  the  Assembly,  he  began  to  make  overtures  to 
the  Delano  forces  which  were  strong  for  Lincoln.  Delano 
himself  had  been  elected  as  a  representative,  while  Hubbell, 
who  had  been  leader  of  this  faction  in  the  Senatorial  contest 
of  the  preceding  Assembly,  was  Speaker  of  the  House. 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  69. 

*Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixi,  p.  182.  *Ibid.,  p.  167. 


259]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  123 

Early  in  January,  a  committee  made  up  of  United  States 
Senators,  Representatives,  and  citizens  was  formed  to  se 
cure  the  nomination  of  Chase,  and  to  them  he  consented 
with  feigned  reluctance  to  allow  his  name  to  be  used.1  Dur 
ing  the  next  month,  this  committee  issued  a  confidential 
-circular  signed  by  Senator  Pomeroy  of  Kansas  asserting 
that  the  election  of  Lincoln  would  be  impossible,  owing  to 
the  influences  which  would  oppose  him,  and  that  Chase  pos 
sessed  the  qualities  needed  in  a  President  during  the  next 
four  years.  To  secure  his  nomination,  the  cooperation  was 
invited  of  "  all  those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  speedy  re 
storation  of  the  Union  on  the  basis  of  universal  freedom  " 
and  who  desired  an  administration  of  the  government  which 
should  develop  the  capacity  of  free  institutions,  and  make 
American  nationality  a  model  before  the  world.2 

Before  this  circular  was  issued,  a  promise  was  secured 
by  the  lieutenants  of  Chase  from  the  opposing  faction,  that 
no  resolution  endorsing  Lincoln  should  be  offered  in  the 
legislature,3  and  when  a  caucus  of  the  Union  members  was 
held  on  February  4th  to  discuss  a  date  for  the  adjourning 
of  the  session,  the  consideration  of  such  a  resolution  which 
had  been  prepared  was  successfully  blocked.4 


1  Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  497. 
2Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  499. 


8R.  C.  Parsons  of  Cleveland,  whom  Chase  had  appointed  U.  S.  Tax 
Collector,  was  his  principal  lieutenant  in  Ohio.  He  and  other  Chase 
appointees  were  in  Columbus  working  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  such 
a  resolution.  An  agreement  was  made  with  Delano,  by  which  in  con 
sideration  of  his  not  urging  the  resolution,  he  should  have  the  support 
of  the  Chase  men  in  securing  the  appointment  to  the  supreme  bench 
in  place  of  Hunter  who  had  just  resigned.  Parsons  to  Chase,  Feb.  4th. 
Chase  Papers,  MS. 

*  Parsons  to  Chase,  Feb.  6th,  said  he  and  his  friends  were  acting  with 
energy,  and  had  the  resolution  been  introduced  it  would  have  met  with 
a  decided  evidence  of  hostility.  Chase  Papers,  MS. 


124          OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [260 

But  the  tide  of  popular  sentiment  was  setting  in  strongly 
for  Lincoln,  and  when  the  Pomeroy  Circular  was  made 
public  on  February  2Oth  through  the  Washington  Constitu 
tional  Union,  it  produced  a  "  perfect  convulsion  in  the 
party."  *  Fortified  by  this,  the  Lincoln  supporters,  in  a 
party  caucus  held  five  days  later,  were  able  to  carry  a  resolu 
tion  "  that  in  the  opinion  of  this  convention,  the  people 
of  Ohio  and  her  soldiers  in  the  army  demand  the  renomin- 
ation  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  presidency  of  the  United 
States."  2  Chase's  hopes  for  the  nomination  were  com 
pletely  blasted  by  this  action,  and  on  March  5th  he  wrote 
that,  owing  to  the  preference  shown  for  another  by  the 
people  of  Ohio,  "  it  becomes  my  duty — and  I  count  it  more 
a  privilege  than  a  duty — to  ask  that  no  further  considera 
tion  be  given  to  my  name."  3 

This  resolution,  while  engineered  by  a  cabal  of  politicians 
acting  through  vindictive  motives,  nevertheless  voiced  the 
opinion  of  a  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the  state  and 
of  the  entire  North.  When  the  Union  state  convention  met, 
May  25th,  to  nominate  a  state  ticket  and  select  delegates 
to  the  national  convention,  the  Lincoln  sentiment  was  upper 
most,  and  the  resolutions  called  for  his  renomination,  at  the 
same  time  pledging  the  cordial  support  of  the  Union  men  of 
the  state  to  the  measures  which  marked  his  administration 
and  especially  approving  the  pending  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.4  The  platform  also  congratulated  the  coun 
try  on  the  success  of  the  armies,  and  proclaimed  with  pride 
the  fact  that,  "  in  the  Cabinet,  in  the  field,  and  in  the  coun- 

1  Parsons  to  Chase,  March  2d. 

*  About  63  of  the  103  Union  members  of  the  Assembly  were  present 
when  the  resolution  was  adopted,  most  of  the  Chase  men  having  with 
drawn. 

3  Chase  to  James  C.  Hall  of  Toledo.     Schuckers,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  502. 

4  This  was  later  adopted  as  the  Thirteenth  Amendment. 


26l]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  I2$ 

cils  of  the  Nation,  the  ability,  fidelity  and  patriotism  of 
Ohio  have  been  proudly  manifest." 

A  resolution  to  endorse  the  work  of  Chase  in  connection 
with  the  finances  of  the  country  was  presented  in  the  com 
mittee,  but  was  opposed  by  Bingham  and  some  of  the  other 
members  on  the  ground  that  the  greenbacks  were  depreciat 
ing  and  might  fail  entirely.  Some  opposition  was  shown 
even  to  including  him  in  the  resolution  on  the  war,  which, 
as  originally  drafted,  referred  only  to  those  in  the  field.  It 
was  finally  amended,  however,  to  include  the  Cabinet.1 

As  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  convention,  Dennison,  Tod, 
Delano  and  Dorsey  were  selected.  The  first  named,  chosen 
to  preside  over  its  sessions,  sounded  the  keynote  of  this,  the 
first  national  gathering  of  the  Union  party,  as  follows : 

In  no  sense  do  we  meet  as  members  or  representatives  of  either 
of  the  old  political  parties.  .  .  .  The  extraordinary  condition 
of  the  country  since  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion  has,  from 
necessity,  taken  from  the  issues  of  these  parties  their  practical 
significance  and  compelled  the  formation  of  substantially  new 
political  organizations,  hence  the  origin  of  the  Union  party  .  .  . 
of  which  this  Convention  is  for  the  purposes  of  its  assembling 
the  accredited  representatives,  and  the  only  test  of  membership 
in  which  is  an  unreserved,  unconditional  loyalty  to  the  gov 
ernment  and  the  Union.2 

The  campaign  of  1864  lacked  the  excitement  and  bitter- 

1W.  D.  Bickham  to  Chase,  May  29,  1864.  Chase  Papers,  MS. 
Chase  received  further  humiliation  later  in  the  year.  He  was  urged  to 
accept  the  nomination  for  Representative  in  the  Cincinnati  district  by 
several  of  his  friends,  and  on  the  representation  to  him  that  he  would 
be  nominated  by  acclamation,  he  consented  to  allow  his  name  to  be 
presented  to  the  convention.  In  reality  those  who  were  at  the  bottom 
of  the  plan,  devised  it  solely  to  defeat  Benj.  Eggleston,  the  opposing 
candidate.  Eggleston's  friends  packed  the  convention,  however,  and 
Chase  was  defeated. 

'McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  405. 


126          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [262 

ness  of  that  of  the  preceding  year.  The  Democracy  was 
divided  on  its  national  platform,  and  the  probable  success 
of  the  war  gave  it  a  certain  hopelessness.  The  Unionists 
carried  the  state  ticket  in  the  October  election  by  a  ma 
jority  of  54,000,  and  won  seventeen  of  the  nineteen  seats 
in  Congress.  A  month  later  Lincoln  obtained  a  majority 
of  60,000. 

With  the  close  of  the  war,  the  work  of  the  Union  party 
seemed  to  be  finished.  The  Union  was  restored,  and  by  the 
passage  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  slavery  was  abol 
ished;  so  the  party  was  without  a  platform.  The  question 
of  whether  or  not  the  organization  should  be  abandoned 
received  much  consideration  during  the  months  following 
the  close  of  hostilities.  The  opinion  of  many  was  voiced 
by  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  which  declared  that,  having 
fulfilled  its  mission,  it  should  pass  from  the  scene  as  the 
old  Republican  party  had  done,  to  give  way  to  new  parties.1 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  maintained  that  there  was  still 
work  for  the  party  to  do  in  securing  the  results  of  the  war, 
and  that  to  disband  it  at  such  a  time  would  be  to  give  up 
what  had  been  accomplished  during  the  four  years  of  strife. 
The  consequence  was  that  the  organization  was  maintained, 
and  the  problems  of  the  Reconstruction  period  succeeded 
those  of  the  war.  To  the  state  itself,  the  question  of  negro 
suffrage  was  the  most  important  of  these,  and  it  occupied 
a  prominent  place  during  the  campaigns  of  1865,  1866  and 
1867,  the  details  of  which  will  be  treated  in  a  later  chapter. 

In  1867  the  party  began  to  use  the  name  "  Union  Re 
publican  "  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Johnson,  or  "  National 
Union  "  party  of  the  previous  year,  and  in  the  Presidential 
campaign  of  1868  this  was  adopted  by  the  national  organi 
zation.  The  Republican  party  which  had  been  formed  in 

1  Cf.  editorials,  Dec.  28,  1865,  and  Jan.  6,  1866. 


263]  THE  UNION  PARTY  IN  OHIO  I2 


1854  was  never  revived  in  Ohio  after  its  demise  in  1861. 
The  issues  upon  which  it  had  been  formed  were  settled  by 
the  war.  The  new  party  formed  in  1861  outlived  the  war, 
and  continued  its  existence  with  new  issues.  The  present 
Republican  party  is  not,  therefore,  a  successor  of  the  or 
ganization  of  1854,  but  rather,  of  the  Union  party  of  the 
war  period. 


CHAPTER  III 

VALLANDIGHAM  AND  THE  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 
THE  PEACE  DEMOCRACY  DURING  THE  EARLY  PART  OF 

THE   WAR 

WITH  the  formation  of  the  Union  party,  those  who  re 
mained  with  the  old  Democratic  organization  constituted 
the  opposition  party  of  the  war  period,  or  as  they  were 
pleased  to  call  themselves,  the  "  Peace  Democracy."  Fail 
ing  to  respond  to  the  sentiment  which  inspired  the  majority 
of  the  people  North,  they  continued  to  use  argument  when 
emotion  was  dominant.  They  took  issue  with  the  Union 
ists  as  to  the  nature  of  the  struggle,  and  refused  to  believe 
that  the  South  was  engaged  in  a  war  of  conquest,  but  held 
that  it  had  been  precipitated  by  the  Abolition  fanatics  of  the 
North.  Contending  that  the  South  could  never  be  con 
quered  by  arms,  they  called  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities  and 
the  summoning  of  a  national  convention  to  adjust  the  dif 
ferences  between  the  sections.  They  denied  the  right  of 
secession,  but  also  denied  the  right  of  any  section  to  inter 
fere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  any  other,  and  took 
issue  with  the  doctrine  of  Lincoln  that  the  Union  could  not 
endure  half  slave  and  half  free.  They  were  careful  to  dis 
tinguish  between  the  government  and  the  administration, 
and  assumed  the  task  of  defending  the  former  against  the 
arbitrary  and  unconstitutional  assaults  of  the  latter. 

The  principal  exponent  of  the  party  in  the  East  was 
Fernando  Wood  of  New  York,  while  the  name  most  closely 
128  [264 


265]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         I2g 

associated  with  it  in  the  West  was  that  of  Clement  L.  Val- 
landigham  of  Ohio.  Born  of  Huguenot  ancestry  in  New 
Lisbon,  Columbiana  county,  Vallandigham  had  from  early 
life  been  a  close  student  of  politics.  After  representing  his 
county  for  two  terms  in  the  state  legislature,  he  removed 
to  Dayton  to  take  up  the  practice  of  law  in  connection  with 
the  duties  of  editor  of  the  Western  Empire,  later,  under  the 
name  of  the  Dayton  Empire  to  be  one  o<f  the  most  radical 
peace  organs  of  the  state.  With  a  mind  developed  by  a 
severe  system  of  training,  possessed  of  great  personal  mag 
netism  and  extraordinary  powers  of  oratory,  and  stimu 
lated  by  an  unbounded  ambition,  he  was  particularly  promi 
nent  among  his  contemporaries  in  the  state. 

In  1852  he  began  a  long  struggle  with  Lewis  D.  Camp 
bell,  then  a  Whig,  for  the  privilege  of  representing  the  third 
district  in  Congress.  Twice  defeated,  he  successfully  con 
tested  the  election  of  his  opponent  in  1856,  and  was  seated 
in  the  early  part  of  1858.  From  that  time  until  his  defeat 
in  the  elections  four  years  later  he  was  constantly  before 
the  public  notice  because  of  his  pronounced  views  on  the 
questions  of  the  day.  His  first  important  speech  in  Con 
gress,  delivered  on  December  14,  1859,  contained  a  state 
ment  of  his  creed.  He  was  not  a  northern  man,  he  said, 
nor  a  southern  man,  though  "  in  this  unholy  and  uncon 
stitutional  crusade  against  the  South  "  his  sympathies  were 
with  her.  He  had  come  into  the  House  an  intense  na 
tionalist,  but  in  the  division  by  sections  he  had  become  a 
western  sectionalist.  The  West,  long  ignored  by  the  North( 
would  soon  hold  the  balance  of  political  power  and  control 
the  destinies  of  the  country.  Within  the  Union,  by  the  net 
work  of  railroads,  she  must  remain  tributary  to  the  North, 
but  once  the  Union  was  dissolved  nature  would  reassert 
herself,  and  the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries  would  be 
come  the  arteries  of  trade.  His  plea,  therefore,  was  for 


1 30          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [266 

the  Union  as  better  for  all  the  sections.  He  was  for  the 
"  Union  as  it  is  and  the  Constitution  as  it  is."  x 

He  would  resort  to  no  forcible  measures  thus  to  preserve 
the  Union,  but  would  overcome  any  necessity  of  destroying 
it  by  removing  the  temptation  of  the  majority  to  impose  on 
the  minority.  He  found  fault  with  the  various  peace  pro 
positions  before  Congress  because  none  of  them  dealt  with 
this  means  of  conciliation,  but  all  aimed  at  checking  the 
power  of  the  majority  by  mere  constitutional  prohibitions.2 
On  November  2,  1860,  he  delivered  a  speech  at  Cooper 
Institute,  New  York  city,  in  which  he  made  the  statement 
so  often  quoted  in  the  years  following : 

If  any  one  or  more  of  the  States  of  this  Union  should  at  any 
time  secede  .  .  .  for  reasons  of  the  sufficiency  and  justice  of 
which,  before  God  and  the  great  tribunal  of  history,  they 
alone  may  judge  .  .  .  much  as  I  would  deplore  it,  I  never 
would,  as  a  representative  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
vote  one  dollar  of  money,  whereby  one  drop  of  American 
blood  should  be  shed  in  a  civil  war.8 

On  February  7,  1861,  he  offered  his  notable  series  of  re 
solutions  in  the  House  for  amending  the  Constitution,  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  the  division  of  the  country  into  slave- 
holding  and  non-slaveholding  sections,  by  creating  other 
sections  without  regard  to  slavery,  no  one  of  which  was  to 
be  strong  enough  to  oppress  or  control  the  others.  The 
New  England  states  with  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Penn 
sylvania  were  to  constitute  one  section,  to  be  known  as  the 
North;  the  states  of  the  Northwest  territory  with  Minne 
sota,  Iowa  and  Kansas  were  to  be  grouped  together  as  the 

1  Cong.  Globe,  36th  cong.,  ist  sess.,  App.,  p.  42. 
'Speech  on  "  How  shall  the  Union  of  these  States  be  Restored  and 
Preserved?"    Cong.  Globe.  36th  cong.,  2nd  sess.,  p.  235. 
*  Vallandigham  Record,  p.  91. 


267]       VALLAND1GHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

West;  Oregon  and  California  were  to  form  a  third  section 
called  the  Pacific;  while  the  border  and  southern  states  were 
to  be  known  as  the  South.  To  preserve  the  balance  of 
power  among  these  sections,  he  devised  a  system  of  concur 
rent  majorities  similar  to  that  advocated  by  Calhoun.1 
On  every  measure  of  Congress  requiring  the  concurrence  of 
both  houses,  a  vote  should  be  taken  by  sections  on  the  de 
mand  of  one-third  of  the  senators  of  any  section,  and  a 
majority  of  the  senators  from  each  section  voting  should  be 
necessary  for  its  passage.  A  majority  of  all  the  electors 
in  each  of  the  sections  was  to  be  necessary  for  the  choice 
of  a  President  and  Vice-President,  who  were  to  hold  office 
for  a  term  of  six  years,  and  were  not  to  be  eligible  to  more 
than  one  term  except  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  all  the 
electors  of  each  section.  No  state  was  to  secede  without 
the  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  all  the  states  composing 
the  section  to  which  it  belonged.  Finally,  the  citizens  of 
all  the  sections  were  to  have  equal  rights  in  the  territories  of 
the  United  States.2 

This  idea  of  regarding  the  West  as  a  section  having  its 
own  local  consciousness,  with  no  part  in  the  quarrel  between 
the  North  and  South  and  no  interest  in  it  except  to  preserve 
the  Union  of  the  states,  was  not  original  with  Vallandig- 
ham,  nor  was  its  expression  confined  to  the  Democracy.  A 
few  days  before  Vallandigham  made  his  first  speech,  Cor- 
win  said  in  the  House :  "  We  of  the  West  do  not  mean  to 
be  held  responsible  to  the  North  or  to  the  South  ...  we 
mean  to  preach  good  and  wholesome  doctrines  to  both, 
and  if  we  possibly  can,  preserve  and  cherish  fraternal  rela 
tions  with  both."  8  Again,  the  sentiments  expressed  dur- 

111  Disquisition  on  Government,1'  Works,  vol.  i. 
1  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  56. 
*Cong.  Globe,  36th  cong.,  ist  sess.,  p.  73. 


132          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [268 

ing  the  visit  of  the  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  legislatures  to 
Ohio  manifested  the  same  feeling.1  But  when  the  decision 
of  the  West  was  made  in  1861  to  unite  with  the  North  in 
the  war,  the  continued  advocacy  of  this  idea,  and  the  at 
tempt  to  sever  the  two  sections  again  could  be  considered 
by  the  Unionists  only  as  a  determination  to  assist  the  South. 
In  his  advocacy  of  peace,  Vallandigham  was  supported 
by  his  colleagues  in  Congress,  Pugh  and  Pendleton.  At  a 
meeting  of  the  Ohio  delegation  on  December  17,  1860, 
these  members  made  a  great  fight  for  conciliation  and  com 
promise,  much  to  the  disgust  of  their  Republican  associates.3 
In  the  Senate  during  the  debate  on  the  Crittenden  com 
promise,  Pugh  urged  the  suspension  of  any  law  which  wa.s 
causing  trouble  between  the  sections  and  the  acceptance  of 
any  measure  looking  toward  peace,3  while  Pendleton  in  pre 
senting  a  petition  from  ten  thousand  of  his  constituents  to 
the  House,  begged  that  all  reasonable  demands  of  the  South 
should  be  granted.  The  states  of  the  northwest  were,  he 
was  sure,  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Union,  on  ac 
count  of  their  inland  position  as  well  as  their  affection. 
If  maintaining  it  were  a  question  of  blood  or  riches,  the 
people  of  those  states  would  furnish  both;  but,  he  con 
tended,  "  money,  armies,  blood  will  not  maintain  the  Union. 
Justice,  reason,  peace  may."  4  The  endorsement  of  the 
peace  idea  in  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Ohio  Demo 
cracy  in  their  convention,  January  23,  i86i,5  and  the  re 
sponses  from  the  neighboring  states  on  the  west,  enabled 
Vallandigham  to  write: 

But  one  thing  we  have  accomplished,  there  will  be  no  war 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  31. 

J  Letter  of  Ashley  to  Chase,  Dec.  20,  1860.    Chase  Papers,  MS. 

*Cong.  Globe,  $6th  cong.,  2d  sess.,  App.,  p.  29. 

*  Ibid.,  App.,  p.  70.  *&>  supra,  p.  54- 


269]       V ALLAN DIGH AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

now.  I  think  peace  for  the  present  has  been  secured.  .  .  . 
Alone  among  public  men  of  the  Free  States  I  took  my  position 
early  in  November  amidst  reproach  and  persecution,  and  even 
when  we  met  here  on  the  3d  of  December  no  man  stood  by 
me  except  Pendleton  and  Pugh.  We  three  began  the  battle 
for  peace,  and  now  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  are  with  us 
through  State  Conventions  of  the  Democratic  party.  .  .  .  Be 
fore  God  I  believe  that  if  Pugh  and  myself  had  not  placed 
ourselves  in  the  breach,  this  country  would  have  been  in  the 
midst  of  a  civil  war  to-day.  .  .  .  The  great  fight  which  we 
made  in  the  Ohio  caucus  on  the  night  of  the  I7th  of  Decem 
ber  saved  us  that  calamity — at  least  up  to  this  point1 

When  Congress  adjourned  on  March  4,  1861,  Vallan- 
digham  returned  to  Ohio.  He  visited  the  legislature  dur 
ing  the  days  just  preceding  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  to 
induce  the  Democratic  members  to  vote  against  all  war 
measures.  On  the  publication  of  the  proclamation  of  the 
President,  May  3d,  calling  out  volunteers  and  increasing 
the  regular  army  and  navy,  he  issued  a  private  circular  to 
some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Democracy  in  the  state  propos 
ing  a  conference  to  deliberate  on  measures  to  "  rescue  the 
Republic  from  an  impending  military  despotism,"  2  but  in 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment,  no  interest  was  manifested, 
and  the  conference  was  not  held. 

In  addition  to  Vallandigham,  Pugh  and  Pendleton,  there 
were  other  able  men  in  the  state  who  refused  to  follow  the 
North  into  war.  Of  these  the  most  important  were  Samuel 
Medary,  Ex-Senator  Allen  and  his  nephew,  Allen  G. 
Thurman,  the  first  two  having  been  prominent  in  political 
affairs  since  the  time  of  Jackson.  Medary  was  for  many 
years  editor  of  the  Ohio  Statesman.  In  1857  he  was  ap- 

1  J.  L.  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  152. 
.,  p.  161. 


134          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [270 

pointed  governor  for  Minnesota  Territory,  and  two  years 
later  was  sent  to  Kansas  in  the  same  capacity.  Returning 
to  Columbus  in  December,  1860,  he  established  the  Crisis, 
and  made  it  one  of  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  peace 
in  the  North.  Allen  had  represented  the  state  in  the  United 
States  Senate  from  1842  to  1848,  after  which  he  retired 
from  active  politics  and  became  a  sort  of  patriarchal  ad 
viser  to  his  party.  Thurman  received  his  political  training 
from  his  uncle.  Prior  to  the  war  he  had  served  in  Con 
gress  and  on  the  supreme  bench  of  the  state.  As  a  whole, 
the  men  who  guided  the  Democracy  through  the  war 
period  were  possessed  of  unusual  ability,  and  in  command 
of  a  powerful  minority,  they  formed  a  worthy  and  danger 
ous  opposition  to  the  administration.  As  they  had  been 
with  very  few  exceptions  Douglas  men  in  1860,  the  Peace 
Democracy  can  in  no  sense  be  said  to  have  grown  out  of 
the  Breckinridge  faction. 

After  hostilities  had  begun,  the  party  turned  its  atten 
tion  to  a  consideration  of  the  objects  of  the  war  and  the 
questions  which  arose  in  connection  with  its  prosecution. 
In  the  special  session  of  Congress  which  convened  in  July, 
1 86 1,  the  Democratic  members  from  Ohio  offered  various 
resolutions,  all  having  in  view  the  preservation  of  the  rights 
of  the  states.1  On  July  22d,  when  Crittenden  introduced 
his  resolution  on  the  cause  and  objects  of  the  war,2  and  a 
vote  was  taken  on  a  division  of  the  question,  the  Ohio 
members  with  the  exception  of  Vallandigham  voted  affirma 
tively  on  the  first  part  and  all  gave  their  assent  to  the  second 
part. 

As  has  already  been  noted,  those  who  controlled  the  ma 
chinery  of  the  party  in  Ohio  rejected  the  invitation  to  aban 
don  it  to  enter  the  new  Union  organization  and  refused 

1  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  286.        « Cf.  supra,  p.  82. 


271]       VALLAND1GHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

to  take  the  movement  seriously.  They  held  that  the  Demo 
cracy  was  the  true  Union  party,  and  that  it  was  folly  to 
think  of  such  rank  disunionists  as  Wade  and  Giddings  and 
their  followers  becoming  real  Unionists.  It  was  also  argued 
that  the  Republicans  were  not  sincere,  but  only  desirous 
of  unloading  principles  they  could  no  longer  maintain  and 
of  escaping  responsibility  for  the  corruption  and  partisan 
ship  of  Governor  Dennison's  administration,  and  thus  sav 
ing  the  party  from  defeat  in  the  fall  elections.  The  Demo 
cratic  leaders  consequently  never  admitted  that  a  new  party 
had  been  formed,  but  continued  to  speak  of  their  opponents 
as  Republicans  and  denounced  as  "  renegades  "  all  who, 
like  Tod  and  Dorsey,  left  the  Democratic  ranks.  In  thus 
keeping  prominent  the  old  hated  party  name  of  their  ad 
versaries,  they  were  able  to  deter  many  of  their  number 
from  joining  the  Union  movement  who  otherwise  might 
have  done  so. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  how  large  a  following  Val- 
laridigham  and  his  associates  had  in  the  party  during  the 
year  1861.  It  is  certain  that  there  was  a  large  conservative 
element  represented  by  Ranney  and  Jewett  who,  while 
unwilling  to  give  up  their  party  affiliation  with  the  Demo 
cracy,  were  not  prepared  to  advance  to  the  position  oc 
cupied  by  the  extremists.  In  certain  sections  of  the  state, 
notably  in  the  third  and  fifth  congressional  districts  *  and 
in  Ashland  and  Franklin  counties,  the  resolutions  adopted 
prior  to  the  state  convention  were  of  a  radical  type,  and 
the  platform  as  adopted  at  the  state  convention  contained 
a  complete  enunciation  of  the  peace  doctrines.  Yet  the 
candidate,  Jewett,  was  a  moderate,  and  in  his  modification 
of  the  platform,  tempered  it  materially.  But  even  so,  the 

*3d  District— Preble,  Butler,  Montgomery  and  Warren  counties. 
5th  District — Van  Wert,  Mercer,  Allen,  Auglaize,  Hancock,  Hardin 
and  Wyandot  counties. 


136          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [272 

decisive  victory  of  the  Unionists  in  the  October  elections, 
not  only  in  Ohio,  but  throughout  the  North,  gave  the  Demo 
cratic  party  little  to  hope  for  in  the  future,  and  even 
threatened  its  very  existence.1 

In  the  face  of  this  situation,  however,  attempts  were 
made  to  revive  the  party,  and  bring  together  its  various 
elements.  Two  caucuses  of  the  Democratic  members  of 
Congress  were  held  at  Washington  for  this  purpose  in 
December,  but  both  broke  up  in  confusion.  There  seemed 
to  be  no  platform  on  which  an  opposition  party  could  con 
tinue.  In  March  of  the  next  year,  1862,  taking  advan 
tage  of  the  growing  opposition  to  the  policy  of  confisca 
tion  and  emancipation,  Vallandigham  drew  up  a  call  for 
a  conference  of  the  Democratic  members  of  both  houses 
and  obtained  thirty-five  signers.  The  meeting  was  held 
on  the  25th  of  that  month,  and  the  appointment  of  a  com 
mittee  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  country 
was  ordered.  In  the  meantime  an  effort  was  being  made 
by  some  of  the  eastern  Democrats  to  combine  with  some 
of  the  old  Whigs  and  Americans  and  form  a  new  conserva 
tive  organization  under  a  new  name;  through  the  manipu 
lations  of  those  concerned  in  this  enterprise  the  appoint 
ment  of  the  committee  was  delayed,  with  the  object  of  de 
feating  Vallandigham's  move.  Vallandigham  prepared 
the  address,  notwithstanding,  and  it  was  published  on  May 
8th,  a  few  days  before  the  date  set  by  the  conservatives  for 
formally  launching  their  project.2  To  it  were  subscribed 
the  names  of  six  of  the  Democratic  members  from  Ohio,3 
three  from  Illinois,  two  from  Indiana,  two  from  Pennsyl 
vania,  one  from  Oregon  and  one  from  New  Jersey.  Re- 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  iii,  p.  487. 
*  J.  L.  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  204. 
8  Vallandigham,  Pendleton,  Allen,  White,  Noble  and  Morris.     Cox 
and  Nugent,  the  other  two,  did  not  sign. 


273]       V ALLAN DIGH AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

viewing  the  great  achievements  of  the  country  under  Demo 
cratic  rule,  the  address  concluded  that  "  neither  the  ancient 
principles,  the  policy,  nor  the  past  history  of  the  Democratic 
party  require  nor  would  justify  its  disbandment,"  and  that 
the  immediate  issue  before  the  country  was,  "  to  maintain 
the  Constitution  as  it  is  and  to  restore  the  Union  as  it  was." 
To  do  the  first  was  to  "  respect  the  rights  of  the  States 
and  the  liberties  of  the  citizen,"  while  to  accomplish  the 
second,  it  was  "  essential  to  give  assurance  to  every  State 
and  to  the  people  of  every  section  that  their  rights,  liber 
ties,  and  property  will  be  secure  within  the  Union  under 
the  Constitution,"  and  to  crush  out  sectionalism  North  and 
South,  through  political  organization  and  the  ballot  box. 
The  charge  that  the  party  was  opposed  to  supporting  the 
government  and  in  favor  of  disbanding  the  armies  was 
denied  as  libelous  and  false.  Yet  while  recognizing  it  as 
their  duty  "  to  support  the  Government  in  all  constitutional, 
necessary  and  proper  efforts  to  maintain  its  safety,  integrity 
and  constitutional  authority,"  they  were  "  inflexibly  op 
posed  to  waging  war  against  any  of  the  States  or  people 
of  this  Union  in  any  spirit  of  oppression  or  for  any  pur 
pose  of  conquest  or  subjection  or  of  overthrowing  or  inter 
fering  with  the  rights  or  established  institutions  of  any 
State."  l 

Throughout  the  winter  of  1861-2  in  Congress,  Vallan- 
digham,  in  defending  his  peace  doctrines,  drew  upon  him 
self  the  attacks  of  the  Unionist  members.  Ohio  politics  came 
into  the  discussions  so  prominently  as  to  draw  from  a  mem 
ber  from  Illinois  the  remark,  that  for  four  sessions  the 
political  situation  in  Ohio  and  the  principles  of  the  members 
from  that  state  had  been  discussed,  and  he  thought  suffi 
cient  time  had  been  devoted  to  that  subject.  Petitions  were 

1  Crisis,  May  14,  1862. 


138          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [274 

presented  from  several  Ohio  districts  calling  for  the  ex 
pulsion  of  Vallandigham  as  a  "  traitor  and  a  disgrace  to 
the  State."  The  conference  of  March  25th  was  made  the 
subject  of  a  bitter  attack  on  him  in  the  Senate  by  Wade. 
Asking  who  were  the  men  concerned  in  the  reconstruction 
of  the  Democratic  party,  he  accused  them  of  a  "  deliberate 
purpose  to  assail  .  .  .  and  to  overawe,  intimidate  and 
trample  under  foot  if  they  can,  the  men  who  boldly  stand 
forth  in  defense  of  their  country,  now  imperiled  by  this 
gigantic  rebellion."  He  characterized  their  leader  as  "  a 
man  who  never  had  any  sympathy  with  this  Republic,  but 
whose  every  breath  is  devoted  to  its  destruction  just  as  far 
as  his  heart  dare  permit  him  to  go."  *  Three  days  later  in 
the  House  Vallandigham  branded  his  colleague  as  "  a  liar, 
a  scoundrel  and  a  coward."  z  This  led  to  the  introduction 
of  a  resolution  of  censure  by  Hutchins,  the  successor  of 
Giddings  in  the  House,  but  it  was  declared  out  of  order  by 
the  speaker  on  a  technicality.  The  stormy  scenes  and  bitter 
attacks  which  characterized  the  session  contributed  much 
toward  solidifying  the  Democracy  and  widening  the  gulf 
between  the  two  parties,  and  the  quarrels  of  the  Ohio  mem 
bers  were  transferred  when  Congress  adjourned  to  the 
state  campaign. 

The  address  of  Vallandigham  and  his  associates  had  a 
marked  effect  in  stimulating  the  Peace  Democracy  of  Ohio 
as  the  time  for  the  campaign  came  on,  and  under  the  slogan, 
"  The  Union  as  it  was  and  the  Constitution  as  it  is,"  the 
local  conventions  were  held  and  resolutions  adopted  em 
bodying,  in  the  Democratic  strongholds,  the  sentiments  thus 
promulgated  by  their  leaders.  Those  of  Butler  county 
went  perhaps  the  farthest.  They  endorsed  the  Virginia 
and  Kentucky  resolutions;  opposed  the  emancipation  of  the 

lCong.  Globe,  37th  cong.,  2d  sess.,  p.  1735.  *Ibid.,  p.  1829. 


275]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         -[39 

slaves  by  the  Federal  government,  "  as  necessarily  calcu 
lated  to  overrun  the  free  States  with  a  brutalized  and  worth 
less  race,  and  to  beget  a  ruinous  competition  with,  and  to 
degrade  free  white  labor;"  and  complimented  Vallandig- 
ham  "  for  the  honest,  bold  and  faithful  manner  in  which 
he  has  fulfilled  his  trust."  The  dissension  in  the  Union 
party,  and  the  growing  opposition  to  the  administration 
throughout  the  West,  gave  the  Democrats  much  cause  for 
hope. 

The  state  convention  was  held  on  July  4th.  In  the  call, 
"  the  Democratic  voters,  and  all  others  in  favor  of  the 
Union  as  it  has  been  and  the  Constitution  as  it  is  "  were 
invited  to  participate,  and  those  who  assembled  were  ready 
to  take  advantage  of  the  unpopularity  of  the  administra 
tion.  Medary  presided,  and  the  committee  on  resolutions 
included  Vallandigham,  Thurman,  Ranney  and  others 
prominent  in  the  party  who  represented  all  shades  of  opinion. 
The  platform  covered  all  the  questions  at  issue  at  the  time. 
Holding  that  the  Democracy  embraced  "  the  devoted  friends 
of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,"  and  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  enemies  of  either,  it  denounced  the  Abolitionists 
for  forcing  party  issues  at  a  time  when  all  loyal  people  of 
the  Union  should  present  an  unbroken  front;  and  for  giv 
ing  aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebel  cause  by  their  denuncia 
tion  of  the  President  whenever  he  manifested  a  conservative 
spirit;  by  their  "atrocious  defamation  of  our  generals;" 
and  by  their  "  persistent  representation  of  all  conservative 
men  in  the  loyal  States  as  sympathizers  with  the  rebels." 
The  acts  of  confiscation  and  emancipation  were  opposed 
not  only  because  they  were  unconstitutional,  but  because 
they  would  have  a  tendency  to  prolong  the  war  by  driving 
the  rebels  to  desperation,  and  would  if  carried  out  engender 
a  feeling  of  bitterness  between  the  sections  which  would 
not  be  allayed  for  generations,  would  destroy  for  years 


140          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [276 

the  industrial  interests  of  a  large  section  of  the  country, 
and  would  throw  upon  the  border  free  states  and  especially 
upon  Ohio  a  large  number  of  negroes  to  compete  with  and 
undermine  the  white  laborers  of  the  state.  The  rights  se 
cured  by  the  Constitution  were  quoted,  and  the  President 
was  denounced  for  his  violation  of  them.  Finally,  the  il 
legal  and  unconstitutional  seizure  of  citizens  for  alleged 
political  offences  was  viewed  with  indignation  and  alarm, 
and  all  who  wished  to  uphold  the  Constitution  were  called 
upon  to  unite  "  in  denouncing  such  flagrant  violations  of 
State  and  Federal  Constitutions  and  tyrannical  infractions 
of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  American  citizens." 

The  recent  use  of  the  military  in  Indianapolis  on  the  oc 
casion  of  the  assembling  of  the  Democratic  state  convention 
there  furnished  Vallandigham  a  theme  for  an  address  to 
the  delegates.  As  to  the  accusation  made  against  the 
Democratic  party  that  it  sympathized  with  treason  and 
disunion,  he  said : 

I  tell  you,  men  of  Ohio,  that  in  three  months,  in  six  weeks  it 
may  be,  these  very  men  and  their  masters  in  Washington  whose 
bidding  they  do,  will  be  the  advocates  o>f  the  eternal  dissolu 
tion  of  this  Union,  and  denounce  all  who  oppose  it  as  enemies 
to  the  peace  of  the  country.  Foreign  intervention  and  the  re 
peated  and  most  serious  disasters  which  have  lately  befallen 
our  arms  will  speedily  force  the  issue  of  separation  and  South 
ern  independence  .  .  .  disunion  or  union  by  negotiation  and 
compromise. 

Between  these  two  he  was  for  the  Union,  the  whole  of  it 
if  possible,  but  if  not,  "  then  for  so  much  of  it  as  can  be 
rescued  and  preserved,  and  in  any  event  and  under  all  cir 
cumstances  for  the  Union  which  God  ordained,  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  valley  and  all  which  may  cling  to  it  under  the  old 
name,  the  old  Constitution  and  the  old  flag."  Medary  was 


277]       VALLANDIGUAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         1^1 

addressed  as  a  "  blessed  martyr  "  because,  after  forty  years 
of  devotion  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  he  was 
compelled  in  his  declining  years  to  see  his  paper  prohibited 
from  circulation  through  the  mails  as  disloyal  to  the  gov 
ernment.  The  arrest  of  Kees,1  a  few  days  before,  led 
Vallandigham  to  ask  why  those  who  were  depriving  citizens 
of  their  rights  did  not  take  up  their  muskets  and  march  to 
the  South  "  to  meet  the  embattled  hosts  of  the  Confederacy, 
instead  of  threatening,  craven  like,  to  fight  unarmed  Demo 
crats  at  home — possibly  unarmed  and  possibly  not." 

Thurman  also  addressed  the  convention  on  the  political 
situation.  Never,  he  contended,  since  written  history  had 
begun  had  a  party  made  such  a  sacrifice  of  its  feelings,  pre 
judices  and  opinion,  in  order  to  support  an  administration 
it  did  not  elect,  as  had  the  Democracy,  and  yet,  though 
they  had  uttered  no  word  in  favor  of  secession  or  made  an 
argument  in  support  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  they 
were  denounced  by  the  Abolitionists  as  rebel  sympathizers 
because  they  would  not  consent  to  make  the  war  one  for 
emancipation.  In  connection  with  the  arrest  of  Kees,  he 
denounced  the  sending  of  a  little  country  editor  under 
arrest  to  Fort  Warren  on  a  pretext  of  enmity  to  the  Union, 
while  Wendell  Philips,  who  had  been  boasting  of  his  dis 
union  sentiments  for  nineteen  years  and  who  was  pro 
claiming  the  war  infamous  unless  waged  for  the  purpose  of 
emancipation,  was  traveling  through  the  country  at  will 
giving  utterance  to  his  disloyalty.2 

The  convention  was  dominated  by  the  Peace  element,  and 
the  nomination  of  Judge  Ranney  to  head  the  ticket  was 
made  in  order  that  the  faction  which  he  represented  might 
be  held  in  line.  The  whole  affair  was  a  triumph  for  Val 
landigham,  who  made  three  separate  speeches  during  the 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  107. 

3  The  convention  speeches  are  given  in  full  in  the  Crisis,  July  23d. 


I42          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [278 

few  days  the  delegates  were  assembled.  The  party  found 
a  new  issue  in  assuming  the  role  of  guardians  of  the  Con 
stitution  against  an  administration  which  was  disregarding 
its  precepts  and  violating  its  fundamental  provisions.  The 
platform  contained  no  mention  of  a  national  convention, 
but  pledged  "  earnest  support  to  all  proper  measures  to  put 
down  the  rebellion,"  and  promised  to  "  make  all  the  allow 
ances  that  the  necessities  of  the  case  require  of  good  citi 
zens."  The  issue  was  raised  solely  on  the  question  of  vio 
lations  of  the  Constitution. 

The  campaign  from  the  Union  party  standpoint  has  al 
ready  been  discussed.1  Arbitrary  arrests,  destruction  of 
Democratic  newspaper  offices,  and  the  abolitionizing  of  the 
war  formed  the  specific  counts  against  the  administration, 
while  the  drafting  of  citizens,  though  admitted  to  be  a  con 
stitutional  right  of  the  executive,  requiring  obedience,  was 
deplored  because  of  the  object  for  which  the  drafted  men 
were  to  be  used,  and  the  people  were  urged  to  vote  so  that 
in  the  future  there  should  be  no  occasion  for  such  measures. 

As  the  campaign  progressed,  the  leaders  of  the  radical 
element  of  the  party  assumed  an  increasing  boldness  in 
their  denunciation  and  invective.2  His  acceptances  of  Gov- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  107. 

2  The  more  important  papers  of  the  state  which  represented  the  Val- 
landigham  element  were:  the  Ashland  Union,  the  Ohio  Eagle  (Lan 
caster)  ,  the  Dayton   Empire,  the   Stark    County   Democrat,   and  the 
Crisis.    The  Ohio  Statesman  and  Cincinnati  Enquirer  were  more  con 
servative. 

The  height  of  invective  was  reached  in  the  following  editorial: 
"  Hired  Hessians  going  to  the  sunny  Southern  soil  to  butcher  by 
wholesale,  not  foreigners,  but  good  men,  as  exemplary  Christians  as 
any  of  our  men  who  believe  they  are  fighting  for  God-given  rights. 
This  is  a  damned  abolition  war,  and  we  believe  Abe  Lincoln  is  as  much 
of  a  traitor  as  Jeff  Davis."  Ashland  Union,  quoted  in  the  Cincinnati 
Commercial  July  nth. 

The  Dayton  Empire,  July  24th,  said:   "The  Republican  party,  its 


279]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

ernor  Tod's  invitation  to  assist  in  the  raising  of  troops 
caused  Ranney  to  be  all  but  repudiated.  On  July  23d,  in 
company  with  Samuel  Galloway  of  Columbus,  a  Unionist 
of  strong  anti-slavery  proclivities,  Ranney  addressed  the 
people  of  Lancaster  urging  such  a  prosecution  of  the  war 
as  would  put  down  every  traitor  in  arms  and  holding  that 
he  had  never  seen  one  cause  cited  that  would  in  any  way 
justify  the  rebellion.1  In  the  issue  of  the  Ohio  Eagle,  the 
next  day,  his  name  was  removed  from  the  Democratic 
ticket  which  that  paper  had  placed  at  the  head  of  its  edi 
torial  column.  This  act  precipitated  a  somewhat  heated 
discussion  throughout  the  Democratic  press  of  the  state. 
It  was  applauded  by  the  extremist  papers,  and  Olds,  then 
making  his  campaign  for  the  congressional  nomination, 
gave  it  strong  approval  and  denounced  Ranney  as  an  Aboli 
tionist.  On  August  28th  the  name  was  replaced,  the  editor 
then  giving  as  his  reason  for  removing  it,  his  dislike  of  the 
company  in  which  Ranney  was  traveling.2  Ex-Senator 
Allen,  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Chillicothe,  October  4th, 
pictured  the  evils  of  negro  emancipation  as  follows  : 

Suppose  that  the  contemplated  emancipation  should  be  in 
augurated  successfully.  Seven  or  eight  hundred  thousand  ne 
groes  with  their  hands  reeking  with  the  blood  of  murdered 
women  and  children  would  present  themselves  at  our  southern 
border  demanding  to  cross  into  our  State  as  Ohio's  share  of 

leaders  and  its  representatives  are  responsible  for  the  war.  They  de 
feated  the  Crittenden  compromise.  The  blood  is  upon  their  hands.. 
Like  the  mark  upon  Cain,  it  remains  to  show  honest  men  now  and  the 
unborn  millions  of  the  future  the  destroyers  and  murderers  of  their 
country." 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  July  25,  1862. 

2  The  replacing  of  the  name  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  Gover 
nor  Tod  had,  a  few  days  before,  requested  the  editor  to  come  to  Colum 
bus  for  an  interview  in  regard  to  the  matter. 


144          OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [280 

the  freed  slaves.  Then  would  come  the  conflict  between  the 
white  laborers  and  the  negroes.1 

The  Unionists  had  little  with  which  to  meet  these  attacks, 
except  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  patriotism  of  the  people  of 
the  state,  and  to  brand  their  opponents  as  traitors. 

EFFECT    OF    THE    ELECTION    OF    1 862    ON    THE    PEACE 
DEMOCRACY 

The  result  of  the  fall  elections,  while  largely  due  to  the 
opposition  of  the  conservative  element  of  the  Union  party 
throughout  the  North  to  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  and 
to  the  arbitrary  arrests,  was  interpreted  by  the  Peace! 
Democracy  to  be  a  condemnation  of  the  whole  war  policy. 
Led  by  this  to  the  mistaken  belief  that  the  voice  of  the 
people  had  been  given  for  peace,  they  assumed  a  boldness 
in  their  attacks  on  the  administration  which  caused  Lincoln 
to  dread  the  "  fire  in  the  rear  "  more  than  the  enemy  in 
front.  Medary  in  the  Crisis  figured  from  the  returns,  the 
majority  by  which  a  Democratic  President  would  have  been 
elected  had  there  been  a  national  election  that  year,  and  ad 
vocated  an  early  state  convention  in  the  next  year  so  that 
the  party  could  continue  its  good  work  toward  the  election 
of  1864. 

A  series  of  jollification  meetings  were  held  throughout 
the  state  at  which  Vallandigham  was  the  most  popular 
speaker.  Stung  by  his  own  personal  defeat,2  which  he  felt 
had  been  brought  about  by  the  machinations  of  a  party  no 
longer  in  sympathy  with  the  popular  will,  he  could  still  con 
sider  the  election  as  a  whole  to  be  an  endorsement  by  his 
old  constituents.  It  was  proper  that  he  should  be  taken 
care  of  by  his  party,  and  at  a  meeting  held  at  Hillsboro, 
October  22d,  a  resolution  was  adopted  proposing  him  as 

lOhio  Statesman,  Oct.  I4th.  a£Y.  supra,  p.  108. 


28l]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         145 

the  most  suitable  candidate  for  governor  in  1863.  A  few 
days  after  the  election,  the  editor  of  the  Dayton  Empire  l 
was  killed  by  a  neighbor  as  a  result  of  a  quarrel  brought  on 
through  a  combination  of  private  and  political  affairs,  and 
this  gave  the  Democrats  an  added  count  against  their  op 
ponents.  He  was  mourned  as  "  the  first  martyr  to  the 
cause  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press."  Vallandigham, 
speaking  at  a  meeting  held  in  Newark,  characterized  the 
murder  as  one  of  the  sad  results  of  the  gospel  of  hate  which 
had  been  for  years  preached  by  many  of  the  clergy  and  in 
stilled  by  the  abolition  press.  Olds,  still  in  prison,  was 
elected  to  the  legislature  to  fill  a  vacancy  caused  by  the 
death  of  the  representative  from  his  counly.  The  names 
"  Butternut  "  and  "  Copperhead  "  applied  to  the  Democrats 
during  the  campaign  as  epithets  of  reproach,  were  assumed 
with  pride  by  the  "  Vallandighammers."  Volunteering  al 
most  ceased  in  the  state,  and  desertions  from  the  army 
became  frequent. 

In  the  midst  of  this  glorification,  the  last  session  of  the 
Thirty-seventh  Congress  convened,  and  Vallandigham  and 
his  associates  returned  to  continue  their  fight  for  the  "Union 
as  it  was  "  and  the  constitutional  rights  of  their  fellow 
citizens  before  the  seemingly  discredited  majority.  On  the 
first  day  of  the  session,  Cox  brought  up  the  subject  of  mili 
tary  arrests  by  offering  a  resolution  that  the  House  "  con 
demn  all  such  arrests  as  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  as  a  usurpation  of 
power  never  given  up  by  the  people  to  the  rulers/' 2  A  few 
days  later  Vallandigham  presented  a  series  of  resolutions 
providing  that  if  anyone  should  advise  the  acceptance  of 
terms  of  peace  on  any  other  basis  than  the  integrity  of  the 

!J.  F.  Bollmeyer. 

*Cong.  Globe,  37th  cong.,  3d  sess.,  p.  2. 


I46          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [282 

Union,  or  should  attempt  to  pervert  the  war  to  one  of  con 
quest  or  to  abolish  slavery,  or  should  propose  by  Federal  au 
thority  to  extinguish  any  of  the  states,  or  make  any  move 
toward  the  declaring  of  a  dictatorship,  he  should  be  guilty 
of  a  high  crime  against  the  Constitution  and  the  Union.1 
The  majority,  however,  under  the  somewhat  despotic  lead 
ership  of  Thaddeus  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  showed  no 
disposition  to  compromise,  or  waver  in  their  support  of  the 
President's  actions.  A  bill  introduced  by  Stevens  was 
pushed  through  the  House,  authorizing  the  President  to 
suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  any 
case  in  any  part  of  the  United  States,  and  giving  to  all  per 
sons  who  were  concerned  in  making  military  arrests,  pro 
tection  against  indictment.2  This  summary  manner  of  vali 
dating  such  questionable  proceedings  called  forth  a  formal 
protest  from  the  minority,  signed  by  thirty-six  members.8 
The  Senate,  a  few  weeks  later,  passed  a  conscription  bill  pro 
viding  for  the  division  of  the  country  into  enrollment  dis 
tricts,  each  in  charge  of  a  provost-marshal  who  was  to 
superintend  the  drafting  of  troops  and  report  on  all  treason 
able  practices  within  his  district.4 

On  these  two  measures  the  two  parties  crossed  sword^ 
during  the  session,  and  when  the  bills  were  finally  enacted 
into  law  on  March  3d,  the  day  before  adjournment,  they 
showed  the  effects  of  the  powerful  attacks  of  the  minority. 
The  act  concerning  military  arrests  was  modified  to  provide 
that  lists  of  all  political  prisoners  held  at  the  time  should  be 
furnished  to  the  judges  of  the  circuit  and  district  courts  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  where  a  grand  jury  had  ad 
journed  without  finding  an  indictment  against  any  such 
person,  the  judge  should  forthwith  discharge  him  on  his 

^Cong.  Globe,  37th  cong.,  3d  sess.,  p.  15. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  21.  *Ibid.,  p.  165.  'Ibid.,  p.  1002. 


283]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

taking  on  oath  of  allegiance.  Any  order  issued  under  the 
authority  of  the  President,  however,  should  be  a  sufficient 
defense  in  any  court  in  any  action,  civil  or  criminal,  for  any 
arrest  made  by  virtue  of  such  order.  Finally,  any  such 
action  begun  in  a  state  court  might  be  transferred  to  the 
United  States  courts.1  The  conscription  act  as  passed  was 
shorn  of  the  clause  regarding  "  treasonable  practices,"  and 
made  to  deal  only  with  the  raising  of  troops.2 

Vallandigham  assumed  the  leadership  of  the  Peace  ele 
ment  in  the  opposition  to  this  legislation.  Ably  supported 
by  his  colleagues,  Cox,  Pendleton  and  C.  A.  White,  and  by 
Voorhees  of  Indiana,  his  thorough  mastery  of  the  rules  of 
the  House  enabled  him  to  wield  the  full  power  of  the 
minority  in  every  stage  of  the  proceedings.  On  Janu 
ary  14,  1863,  ne  delivered  one  of  the  strongest  speeches  of 
his  career  on  the  war  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union. 
Holding  that  not  slavery  but  abolition  was  the  cause  of  the 
war,  he  "  blessed  God  that  not  the  smell  of  so  much  as  one 
drop  of  its  blood  "  was  upon  his  garments.  The  war  for 
the  Union  had  been  "  a  most  bloody  and  costly  failure  ". 
The  President  had  confessed  it  in  his  Proclamation,  and 
now  it  was  to  be  changed  to  a  war  for  the  negro.  He  de 
nied  the  doctrine  of  an  "  irrepressible  conflict ".  The 
Union  part  slave  and  part  free  was  one  of  the  compromises 
of  the  Constitution.  If  the  East  continues  until  a  separation 
be  forced,  "  the  day  which  divides  the  North  from  the 
South,  that  self-same  day  decrees  eternal  divorce  between 
the  East  and  the  West  ".  Asking  if  the  war  should  con 
tinue,  he  answered :  "  No,  not  a  day,  not  an  hour.  What 
then?  Shall  we  separate?  Again  I  answer,  no.  What 
then?"  He  would  stop  fighting  and  declare  an  armistice, 
reduce  the  armies  to  a  peace  footing,  and  when  passion  had 

1  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xii,  p.  755.  2 Ibid.,  p.  731. 


148          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [284 

cooled,  settle  the  question  on  the  basis  of  the  original  Con 
stitution,  giving  each  section  the  power  to  protect  itself 
within  the  Union.  He  would  accept  the  offer  of  the  Em 
peror  of  France  *  for  friendly  mediation,  "  as  the  speediest, 
easiest,  most  graceful  mode  of  suspending  hostilities." 
Later  on  in  the  session,  when  the  conscription  bill  was 
under  discussion,  he  made  a  vigorous  attack  on  its  provi 
sions.  Recalling  to  the  members  of  the  majority  that  the 
proposal  to  draft  was  a  confession  that  the  people  of  the 
country  were  against  the  war,  he  denounced  the  new  crime 
of  "  treasonable  practices  "  as  being  not  only  unknown  to 
the  Constitution,  but  as  sanctioning  the  arbitrary  arrests 
against  which  the  people  had  spoken  so  decisively  at  the 
last  election.  He  asked  only  that  the  majority  give  the 
people  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  "  till  at 
the  time  and  in  the  manner  appointed  by  the  Constitution 
and  law,  we  shall  eject  you  from  the  trusts  you  have  abused, 
and  the  seats  of  power  you  have  dishonored,  and  other  and 
better  men  shall  reign  in  your  stead."  3 

The  Peace  Democrats  throughout  the  state  assumed  an  at 
titude  similar  to  that  taken  by  their  spokesmen  in  Congress. 
While  many  in  the  party  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the 
views  of  Vallandigham  regarding  peace,  all  could  unite  on 
a  common  ground  in  opposing  the  prosecution  of  the  war 
for  the  freeing  of  the  negro,  and  in  championing  the  cause 
of  personal  liberty.  The  issuing  of  the  final  Proclamation 
of  Emancipation  on  January  ist,  left  no  doubt  as  to  the 
changed  character  of  the  war,  while  the  failure  of  the  at- 

1  Horace  Greeley  was  laboring  to  bring  about  mediation  by  Louis 
Napoleon,  and  had  solicited  Vallandigham's  aid  in  the  matter.  See 
Rhodes,  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  iv,  p.  222.  Vallandigham  and  Cox 
both  advocated  this  in  their  speeches. 

*Cong.  Globe,  37th  cong.,  3d  sess.,  App.,  p.  55. 

*Ibid.,  App.,  p.  172. 


285]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

tack  on  Vicksburg  and  the  disaster  at  Fredericksbtirg  in 
dicated  the  probable  truth  of  the  assertion  that  the  South 
could  not  be  conquered.  The  disruption  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Union  party  was  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  solidifica 
tion  of  the  Democracy. 

Olds,  released  from  prison  only  a  few  weeks  before,1  was 
escorted  from  Lancaster  to  take  his  seat  in  the  legislature 
by  a  long  procession  of  the  Democrats  of  his  county,  and 
was  tendered  an  enthusiastic  reception  on  his  arrival  at 
Columbus.  George  L.  Converse,  the  minority  leader  in 
the  lower  house,  in  delivering  the  address  of  the  occasion, 
held  that  the  enthusiasm  was  not  a  mere  personal  demon 
stration,  but  one  for  principle — because  a  usurper  had  seen 
fit  to  cause  his  arrest  in  violation  of  the  express  provisions 
of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  because  you  had  the  independence  and  the  manhood  to 
prefer  to  sacrifice  your  life  upon  the  altar  of  your  country,  to 
prefer  the  slow  tortures  of  martyrdom  in  a  political  bastile, 
rather  than  yield  to  this  abolition  god  your  Constitutional  rights 
and  Constitutional  liberty  as  an  American  citizen. 

In  his  response,  Olds  expressed  the  hope  "  that  the  despot 
ism  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and  '  renegade  '  Tod  is  fast  com 
ing  to  an  end.  The  demonstration  of  today  shows  that  the 
American  people  are  aroused  to  a  sense  of  their  true 
condition." 

On  January  8th,  the  Democrats  held  their  usual  Jackson 
day  banquet  at  Columbus,  and  the  burning  questions  of  the 
times  furnished  stimulating  themes  for  the  addresses. 
Thurman  responded  to  the  sentiment,  "  Civil  liberty  and  its 
great  bulwark,  the  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus."  Jewett,  speak- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  106. 

*  Crisis,  January  7,  1863. 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [286 

ing  on  the  subject,  "  Executive  Proclamations,"  said  he 
never  regretted  his  defeat  for  governor  until  Lincoln  had 
proclaimed  martial  law,  and  that  if  he  had  been  in  office 
at  the  time  he  would  have  issued  a  counter  proclamation 
telling  the  administration  that  though  Ohio  was  loyal  to 
the  government,  the  Constitution  and  the  old  flag,  her  peo 
ple  had  rights  and  would  not  tamely  submit  to*  have  them 
violated,  outraged  and  destroyed.  Medary  spoke  on 
"Freedom  of  Speech  and  of  the  Press,"  Olds  and  McGregor 
on  "  The  Lincoln  Bastile,"  and  Critchfield,  the  attorney- 
general  elect,  on  "  The  Constitution  as  it  is,  the  Union  as 
it  was  and  the  Negroes  where  they  are."  As  reported  in 
the  press  the  tone  of  the  speeches  was  extremely  radical, 
that  of  Critchfield  being  especially  so.  He  charged  the  ad 
ministration  with  changing  the  war  from  its  original  pur 
pose  to  a  "  nigger  crusade,"  and  held  that  if  the  incessant 
violations  of  the  Constitution  continued,  if  the  rights  of  the 
citizens  were  wantonly  trampled  upon  and  their  civil  liber 
ties  destroyed  by  the  administration,  he  did  not  believe  the 
people  would  care  whether  Lincoln  or  Jeff  Davis  were  in 
Washington.1  Because  of  these  remarks,  the  Senate  re 
fused  to  pass  the  usual  resolution  informing  him  of  his 
election.2 

In  the  legislature  the  same  defiant  attitude  was  dis 
played,  and  while  the  Unionists  were  wrestling  with  the 
Senatorial  question  and  the  Emancipation  Proclamation, 
they  were  also  compelled  to  contend  against  the  persistent 
attacks  of  a  troublesome  minority.  The  violation  of  per 
sonal  rights  through  executive  usurpation,  and  the  threat 
ened  overrunning  of  the  state  by  the  freed  negroes  were 

1  Accounts  of  the  meeting  are  given  in  the  Ohio  Statesman,  Jan.  gth, 
and  in  the  Crisis,  Jan.  14,  1863. 
*  Senate  Journal,  1863,  p.  12. 


287]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         jcjj 

topics    under   almost   constant    discussion    throughout?   the 
session. 

Governor  Tod  assumed  full  responsibility  in  his  mes 
sage  for  the  arrests  of  the  preceding  year,  asserting  that 
two  had  been  made  at  his  own  request.1  He  recommended 
that  the  treason  act  of  1861  be  so  modified  as  to  include  the 
offense  of  interfering  with  enlistments,  thus  enabling  the 
local  authorities  to  deal  with  such  offenders  in  the  future. 
On  the  second  day  of  the  session,  Dresel,  a  Peace  Demo 
crat  from  Franklin  county,  offered  a  resolution  calling  for 
the  appointment  of  a  select  committee  to  inquire  what 
citizens  of  the  state  had  been  imprisoned,  the  charges 
against  them  and  by  whom  made,  what  provision  had  been 
made  for  their  trial,  on  what  terms  they  had  been  released 
and  what  the  governor  had  done  to  protect  the  citizens  of 
Ohio  against  unlawful  arrests  and  to  secure  to  them  the 
constitutional  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial  by  an  im 
partial  jury.2  A  counter  resolution  was  offered  from  the 
Union  side  to  instruct  the  judiciary  committee  to  report  a 
bill  for  the  more  effectual  suppression  of  disloyalty  to  the 
government  within  the  state,  and  to  inquire  whether  any 
member  of  the  House  had  been  engaged  in  any  treasonable 
practices  or  of  giving  aid  or  encouragement  to  the  enemies 
of  the  government.3  In  his  defense  Olds  asked  that  this 
committee  be  instructed  to  inquire  whether  any  member  of 
the  House  had  been  guilty  of  treason  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  ascertain  from 

1  Tod  wrote  to  the  Secy,  of  State,  July  29,  1862:  "I  have  most  satis 
factory  evidence  that  Edson  B.  Olds,  a  former  member  of  Congress,  is 
doing  all  the  mischief  he  can.  He  is  a  shrewd,  cunning  man,  with 
capacity  for  great  mischief,  and  should  at  once  be  put  out  of  the  way. 
I  have,  therefore,  to  advise  that  you  direct  Marshal  Sands  to  arrest  him 
and  confine  him  at  Fort  Warren,  at  least  until  I  shall  have  succeeded 
in  raising  my  regiments."  House  Journal,  1863,  App.,  p.  7. 

*  House  Journal,  1863,  p.  7.  *Ibid.,  p.  8. 


1 52          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [288 

the  governor  whether  either  of  the  persons  whose  arrest  he 
recommended  were  members  of  the  House,  and  if  so,  that 
he  be  required  to  produce  the  evidence  on  which  his 
action  was  based.1  The  first  of  these  resolutions  was 
adopted  with  the  omission  of  the  clauses  asking  by  whom 
the  charges  were  made  and  what  the  governor  had  done  to 
protect  the  citizens.2 

The  committee  as  appointed  consisted  of  three  Unionists 
and  two  Democrats.  It  collected  evidence  on  all  the  cases, 
and  reported  on  April  I4th,  the  last  day  of  the  session.3 
Considering  the  demand  of  the  parties  for  a  trial  by  jury 
and  its  refusal,  it  held  that,  "  under  our  system  of  govern 
ment  there  can  be  no  trial  by  jury  for  offenses  committed, 
except  upon  the  charge  of  some  act  specifically  declared  by 
statute  to  be  punishable  as  a  crime;"  and  since  discourage- 
ing  enlistments  and  exciting  disobedience  to  a  draft  were 
so  entirely  unknown  prior  to  the  war,  no  statutes  had  been 
enacted  on  the  subject.  Consequently,  the  courts  had  no 
jurisdiction  and  the  guaranties  of  the  Constitution  did  not 
apply.  In  the  emergency,  two  alternatives  were  open  to  the 
government,  either  to  suffer  its  arm  to  be  paralyzed  with 
impunity  by  seditious  and  disloyal  practices  and  speeches, 
which  were  not  indictable  by  statute,  and  hence  not  triable 
by  jury,  or  to  curb  and  restrain  these  practices  by  military 
power.  The  government  had  chosen  the  course  of  firmness, 

1  House  Journal ',  1863,  p.  9.  *Ibid.,  p.  145. 

8 The  committee  found  that  the  following  citizens  of  the  state  had 
been  arrested  by  military  authority:  Edson  B.  Olds  of  Fairfield  county; 
Peter  N.  Reitzel  and  Archibald  McGregor  of  Stark  county;  Judge  L. 
W.  Hall  and  Daniel  Tuttle  of  Crawford  county;  John  W.  Kees  of  Pick- 
away  county;  Daniel  M.  Allen  of  Columbiana  county;  Samuel  Flowers 
and  Bethuel  Ruberts  of  Champaign  county;  Warren  Stanton  of  Ashta- 
btila  county;  and  Alexander  Wallace  of  Brown  county.  The  report  of 
the  committee  with  the  evidence  may  be  found  in  the  appendix  of  the 
House  Journal  for  1863. 


289]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

and  under  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  providing  for  the 
suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
promoters  of  sedition  were  temporarily  confined.  The  ac 
tion  was  fully  justified,  the  committee  held,  under  this  clause, 
while  the  recent  acts  of  Congress  would  provide  for  such 
cases  in  the  future. 

In  the  meantime,  Converse  introduced  a  bill,  March  24th, 
making  the  arrest  of  any  white  person  within  the  state  by 
military  authority  or  in  any  way  without  a  legal  process,  a 
felony.1  When  it  came  up  for  discussion  a  few  days  later, 
a  substitute  was  presented  and  passed  which  modified  the 
kidnapping  law  of  1835,  so  as  to  except  from  its  provisions 
persons  carried  out  of  the  state  in  pursuance  of  a  military 
order  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  state  or  the 
United  States.  After  the  measure  had  thus  been  turned 
from  its  original  intention,  the  Democrats  suggested  various 
titles  for  it  such  as :  "  An  act  to  relieve  the  Republican  party 
from  violations  of  a  criminal  law,"  and  "An  act  to  abdicate 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State  of  Ohio  and  transfer  the  same 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States."  The  Senate  passed 
the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  House.2  An  older  act  of  1811 
prohibiting  the  sending  of  any  citizen  of  Ohio  to  any  place 
outside  the  state  for  an  offense  committed  within  its  limits 
except  in  certain  specified  instances,  was  modified  so  as  to 
include  within  its  exceptions  persons  sent  from  the  state 
"  in  pursuance  of  any  military  order  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States."  3  By  this  legislation,  the  Unionists  indi 
cated  their  determination  to  support  the  administration  on 
the  matter  of  military  arrests  as  making  for  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  resolution  pledging  anew 

1  House  Journal,  1863,  p.  397. 

*  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ix,  p.  72.  *  Ibid.,  p.  115. 


154          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [290 

the  support  of  the  state  to  the  government,  and  deprecating 
any  attempt  to  divide  the  loyal  states  with  the  ultimate  de 
sign  of  attaching  any  portion  of  them  to  the  Southern  Con 
federacy,1  Dresel  offered  as  a  substitute  a  series  of  resolu 
tions  which  formed  part  of  the  platform  adopted  by  the 
Democratic  party  of  Connecticut  a  few  days  before.  They 
provided  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  should 
be  supported  in  the  full  constitutional  exercise  of  its 
powers,  yet  they  avowed  that  "  the  liberties  of  the  people 
are  menaced  by  Congress  and  Federal  usurpation,  and  can 
only  be  preserved  by  the  energetic  action  of  State  authority, 
and  we  are  determined  to  maintain  and  defend  the  honor  of 
our  State  and  the  rights  of  her  people."  The  conscription 
act  was  held  to  be  "  subversive  of  the  sovereignty  and  rights 
of  the  States,  and  designed  to  make  them  mere  dependencies 
upon  the  central  government,  unconstitutional  in  its  provi 
sions,  and  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people."  The 
national  banking  system  was  held  to  be  based  upon  an  un 
constitutional  and  irredeemable  issue  of  paper  currency, 
and  designed  to  establish  a  vast  central  money  power  un 
known  to  the  Constitution.  The  Emancipation  Proclama 
tion  tended  "  to  disgrace  our  country  in  the  eyes  of  the 
civilized  world,  and  carry  lust,  rapine  and  murder  into 
every  house  in  the  slaveholding  states."  The  recent  acts 
of  the  Federal  administration  were  recited,  and  all  declared 
"  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional,  subverting  the  Constitu 
tion,  Federal  and  State,  invading  the  reserved  rights  of  the 
people  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  States." 

This  extreme  expression  of  the  doctrine  of  state  rights 
was  supported  when  Dresel  introduced  it  by  only  ten  of 
the  minority  party.  The  indignation  felt  by  the  Unionists 
led  to  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  of  censure  declaring 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  112.  J  House  Journal,  1863,  p.  363. 


291]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         155 

Dresel  "  a  promoter  of  sedition,  an  advocate  of  disunion 
and  an  enemy  to  his  country." 

The  Democrats  also  continued  their  agitation  against  the 
immigration  of  negroes  into  the  state.  Attempts  were 
made  to  have  the  bills  which  had  been  postponed  at  the 
preceding  session  *  brought  up  for  consideration,  and  also 
to  have  a  resolution  adopted  providing  for  the  submission 
of  a  constitutional  amendment  on  the  subject  to  the  voters 
at  the  next  annual  election.2  In  order  to  find  out  if  the 
question  was  as  serious  as  the  Democrats  were  representing 
it,  the  auditor  of  state  was  directed  by  resolution  to  ascer 
tain  from  the  county  auditors  the  number  of  colored  persons 
immigrating  into  the  various  counties  since  March  i,  1861, 
and  the  place  where  each  resided  before  coming  into  the 
state.3  Reports  from  fifty-seven  counties  were  obtained 
which  showed  a  total  of  1384  immigrants.  Allowing  the 
same  proportion  for  the  other  counties,  the  whole  increase 
was  estimated  at  about  2000.  Of  those  reported,  1250  came 
from  the  South,  mostly  from  the  border  states.4  This 
seemed  to  the  majority  sufficient  proof  that  the  question 
was  not  a  serious  one,  and  they  refused  to  take  any  action 
on  it. 

The  Democratic  meetings  which  had  been  begun  after 
the  fall  elections,  were  continued  through  the  winter  and 
spring  while  the  party  leaders  were  urging  their  opposition 
to  the  acts  of  the  administration,  in  Congress,  in  the  state 
legislature,  and  through  the  press.  The  addresses  and  reso 
lutions  adopted  at  these  meetings  contained  the  same  de 
nunciations  of  executive  usurpation  and  the  abolitionizing 
of  the  war.  Vallandigham  formally  announced  his  can- 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  97. 

1  Senate  Journal,  p.  41. 

3 House  Journal,  1863,  p.  265.  4 Ibid.,  p.  476. 


156          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [292 

didacy  for  the  governorship  in  January,1  and  at  many  of  the 
meetings  he  was  endorsed.  The  idea  of  holding  a  national 
Democratic  convention,  which  was  suggested  early  in  the 
year  by  the  Chicago  Times,  also  found  mucli  favor. 

On  the  night  of  March  5th,  the  office  of  the  Crisis  was 
mobbed  by  soldiers  from  Camp  Chase,  just  outside  of  Co 
lumbus,  and  its  contents  were  destroyed.  The  paper  had  been 
excluded  from  circulation  in  some  of  the  states  and  in  many 
of  the  regiments  in  the  field  on  account  of  its  seemingly 
treasonable  editorials,  and  the  feeling  in  the  army  was  very 
bitter  toward  it.  Medary  was  out  of  the  city  at  the  time 
of  the  attack,  and  on  his  return  the  next  day  he  was  met  at 
the  depot  by  a  large  number  of  the  Democracy  and  escorted 
to  his  home,  where  Thurman  expressed  the  sympathy  of 
the  party  for  his  loss.  On  the  next  day  a  "  law  and  order 
meeting  "  was  held  in  Columbus,  and  the  authorities  were 
called  upon  to  punish  the  guilty  parties.  In  the  resolutions 
adopted,  the  "  outrage  "  was  declared  to  be 

the  natural  consequence  of  that  fatal  disregard  of  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws  which  has  marked  the  course  of  our  Admin 
istration,  Federal  and  State,  ever  since  the  war  began.  .  .  . 
We  now  say  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  not  by  way  of  threat, 
but  calmly  and  firmly,  that  we  will  not  surrender  these  rights, 
nor  submit  to  their  forcible  violation.  We  will  obey  the  laws 
ourselves,  and  all  others  must  obey  them.2 

An  investigation  was  made  by  the  officers  of  the  regiment 
to  which  the  soldiers  belonged,  but  no  one  was  punished  for 
the  offense.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  such 
attacks  which  continued  throughout  the  war.  While  they 
were  condoned  by  the  military  authorities,  they  added  a 

1  Letter  to  Dem.  central  committee  of  Jefferson  county.     Cincinnati 
Commercial,  Jan.  28,  1863. 
*Ohio  Statesman,  March  8th. 


293]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

new  plank  to  the  platform  of  the  Peace  Democracy,  that 
of  retaliation  in  kind.  The  Dayton  Empire  said : 

If  we  have  no  protection  under  the  Constitution  and  laws,  then 
we  must  protect  ourselves  by  every  power  and  right  vested  in 
us  as  freemen.  We  must  make  the  property  of  our  opponents 
security  for  our  own.  .  .  .  For  every  drop  of  blood  spilled  by 
abolition  mobs,  let  theirs  flow  in  retaliation.1 

After  Congress  adjourned  on  March  4th,  and  the  Ohio 
members  returned  to  their  homes,  the  contest  was  waged 
within  the  state  with  all  the  resources  of  both  parties.  With 
petitions  coming  in  from  the  soldiers  in  the  field,  denouncing 
the  Democrats  as  traitors,  and  calling  on  the  friends  of  the 
Union  to  remain  loyal,  with  the  activity  of  the  secret  or 
ganizations  opposed  to  the  war,  and  the  corresponding  ac 
tivity  of  the  Union  Leagues  to  keep  up  the  war  spirit,  and 
with  the  quarreling  over  offices  among  the  members  of  the 
Union  party,  the  situation  at  times  looked  very  serious  for 
the  Union  cause.2  Each  party  tried  to  outdo  the  other  in 
arranging  meetings  and  arousing  enthusiasm. 

The  sequel  to  the  Olds  affair  3  came  with  the  arrest  of 
Governor  Tod  in  his  office  at  the  State  House,  April  2d, 
by  a  deputy  sheriff  of  Fairfield  county,  on  a  warrant  issued 
by  Van  Trump  as  common  pleas  judge  charging  him  with 
the  crime  of  kidnapping.  In  December,  Olds  had  appeared 
before  a  justice  of  the  peace  and  made  affidavit  that  Stongh- 
ton  Bliss  of  the  governor's  staff,  together  with  two  others, 
had  arrested  and  carried  him  out  of  the  state  unlawfully. 
Bliss  was  placed  under  bond  to  appear  for  trial.  Later  he 
petitioned  under  the  act  of  March  3d,  to  have  his  case 

1  Editorial,  March  nth. 

3  Stanley  Matthews  wrote  to  Chase,  February  loth,  that  he  had  been 
home  shortly  before  and  was  surprised  at  the  boldness  of  the  leading 
Democrats  against  the  government.  Chase  Papers,  MS. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  1 06. 


158          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [294 

transferred  to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  at  Cincinnati. 
This  was  refused  by  Van  Trump  on  the  ground  that  the 
case  arose  in  the  execution  of  a  mere  order  of  the  Presi 
dent,  which  was  unauthorized  by  any  act  of  Congress  and 
was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  constitution  of  the  state  and 
with  the  kidnapping  act  of  1835.  Indictments  were  conse 
quently  brought  against  Bliss  and  also  against  the  governor. 
A  warrant  was  issued  for  Tod's  arrest,  and  a  deputy  sheriff 
was  sent  to  Columbus.  It  happened  that  at  the  time  of  his 
arrival  the  Supreme  Court  was  in  session,  and  Tod  applied 
to  Judge  Gholson,  who  released  him  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  on  his  giving  bond  to  appear  in  the  Fairfield  county 
court  on  June  ist.  The  bill  to  amend  the  kidnapping  act 
had  just  gone  from  the  House  to  the  Senate  when  the  news 
of  Tod's  arrest  became  known,  and  an  attempt  was  made 
to  call  the  Senate  together  after  it  had  adjourned,  to  pass 
the  measure.  This  could  not  be  done,  and  the  bill  was  not 
enacted  until  April  Qth.1 

In  June,  the  governor  appeared  before  the  court  and  ob 
tained  a  continuance  in  the  criminal  case,  but  he  was  served 
with  papers  in  a  civil  suit  by  Olds  for  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars  damages.  On  a  petition  made  later  in  the  year  to 
have  this  case  transferred  to  the  United  States  court,  Van 
Trump  held  the  act  of  March  3d  unconstitutional,2  and  re 
fused  to  grant  the  petition.8 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  153.  2  Crisis,  November  25,  1863. 

3  On  this  refusal  of  Van  Trump  to  transfer  the  case,  the  legislature  at 
its  next  session  passed  an  act,  March  17,  1864  (Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixi, 
p.  31),  providing  for  the  transfer  of  such  prosecutions  to  the  United 
States  courts  in  compliance  with  the  Indemnity  act.  It  was  to  be  the 
duty  of  the  state  court  to  certify  the  suit  to  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States  of  the  district  in  which  the  suit  was  pending.  In  case  of 
refusal,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  was  authorized  to  compel  its  per 
formance  by  writ  of  mandamus.  In  accordance  with  this  act,  the 
Supreme  Court  issued  such  a  writ  in  June,  1865,  and  the  case  went  to 
the  United  States  court  at  Cincinnati,  where  it  slept.  In  1867,  after 
the  Democratic  success  of  that  year,  an  attempt  was  made  to  revive  it, 
but  without  success. 


295]       V  ALLAN  DIGH  AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 
THE  ARREST  AND  TRIAL  OF  VALLANDIGHAM 

With  feeling  in  the  state  thus  at  high  tension,  an  added 
element  of  disturbance  was  injected  by  the  assignment  of 
General  Burnside  in  April  to  the  command  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  the  Ohio,  composed  of  the  states  of  Ohio,  Kentucky, 
Indiana,  Illinois  and  Michigan,  with  headquarters  in  Cin 
cinnati.  Fresh  from  his  recent  disaster  at  Fredericksburg, 
he  had  lost  prestige  with  the  country,  and  his  efforts  to  deal 
with  the  "rebel  sympathizers"  in  the  states  under  his  control 
were  opposed  with  much  bitterness  by  the  Democrats.  At 
a  large  mass  meeting  held  at  Hamilton,  Ohio,  on  March 
23d,  where  Vallandigham,  Pendleton  and  Voorhees  were 
the  principal  speakers,  the  first  named  took  for  his  text  a 
recent  order,  Number  15,  issued  by  General  Carrington  *  in 
Indiana  under  the  direction  of  Burnside,  forbidding  the 
carrying  of  arms.  He  contrasted  it  with  what  he  called 
General  Order  Number  i,  signed  by  George  Washington, 
:'  The  right  of  the  people  to  carry  and  bear  arms  shall  not 
be  infringed,"  and  with  General  Order  Number  2,  from  the 
Constitution  of  the  state,  "  The  people  have  a  right  to  bear 
arms  for  the  defense  of  themselves  in  the  state."  When 
ever  an  attempt  was  made  by  the  party  in  power  to  per 
petuate  their  existence  by  unlawful  means,  then  he  was  for 
resistance.  Those  before  him  gave  evidence  that  the  admin 
istration  would  not  dare  to  trifle  with  twenty-five  millions 
of  people.  Pendleton  was  for  opposing  the  administration 
by  peaceable  means,  by  free  speech,  a  free  press  and  the 
ballot  box,  but  if  these  were  taken  away  and  mob  violence 
imposed,  then  let  their  opponents  beware.  This  was  the 
beginning  of  that  open  defiance  to  the  orders  of  General 
Burnside  which  culminated  in  the  arrest  and  removal  of 

1  Under  Burnside,  Gen.  Carrington  was  in  command  of  the  district  of 
Indiana  with  headquarters  at  Indianapolis.  Gen.  J.  D.  Cox  was  in 
command  of  the  district  of  Ohio. 


160          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [296 

Vallandigham.  Resolutions  were  adopted  at  this  meeting, 
calling  for  a  national  convention  to  be  held  at  Indianapolis 
on  the  third  Tuesday  of  May,  endorsing  Vallandigham  for 
governor,  and  eulogizing  Thomas  H.  Seymour,  the  Demo 
cratic  candidate  for  governor  of  Connecticut.1 

On  April  I3th,  Burnside  issued  his  General  Order  Num 
ber  38,  which  was  destined  to  bring  the  Peace  Democrats 
to  the  high  tide  of  their  opposition.  Finding  a  strong  pro- 
southern  element  in  Cincinnati  who  were  active  in  assist 
ing  their  friends  by  information  and  provisions,  the  order 
provided  that,  "  hereafter  all  persons  found  within  our 
lines  who  commit  acts  for  the  benefit  of  the  enemies  of  our 
country  will  be  tried  as  spies  or  traitors  and,  if  convicted, 
will  suffer  death."  After  a  specific  enumeration  of  the 
classes  of  persons  referred  to,  it  continued : 

The  habit  of  declaring  sympathy  for  the  enemy  will  not  be 
allowed  in  this  department.  Persons  committing  such  offenses 
will  be  at  once  arrested  with  a  view  to  being  tried  as  above 
stated,  or  sent  beyond  our  lines  into  the  lines  of  their  friends. 
It  must  be  distinctly  understood  that  treason  expressed  or  im 
plied  will  not  be  tolerated  in  this  department.2 

A  provost  court  was  established,  and  the  trial  of  individuals 
who  were  found  committing  overt  acts  forbidden  by  its 
provisions  was  begun.3 

The  order  immediately  became  the  target  for  the  shafts 
of  the  Democratic  orators,  especially  Vallandigham,  who 
pronounced  it  another  link  in  the  chain  of  despotic  acts  of 
Lincoln  and  his  minions,  and  openly  defied  it.  Burnside, 
with  all  the  instincts  of  a  military  commander,  resented  this, 

1  Crisis,  April  i,  1863. 

*  The  Trial  of  Hon.  C.  L.  Vallandigham  by  a  Military  Commission. 
Cincinnati,  1863,  p.  7. 
8  J.  D.  Cox,  Military  Reminiscences,  vol.  i,  p.  455. 


297]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

and  determined,  should  the  offense  be  repeated,  to  arrest  the 
chief  offender. 

On  May  ist  a  mass  meeting  of  the  Democracy  of  Knox 
county  was  held  at  Mount  Vernon.  This  meeting  was 
characteristic  of  the  times,  being  attended  by  an  immense 
number  of  people *  and  lasting  the  entire  day.  The  decor 
ations  consisted  of  American  flags  and  butternuts,  while 
pins  made  of  the  heads  cut  out  of  copper  cents  were  worn 
conspicuously.  Addresses  were  delivered  simultaneously 
from  four  stands,  the  principal  orators  of  the  day  being 
Vallandigham,  Cox  and  Penclleton.  While  the  last  two 
were  somewhat  temperate  in  their  remarks,  Vallandigham 
rose  to  the  height  of  invective  in  his  denunciation  of  the  ad 
ministration.  He  held  that  the  intention  of  those  in  power 
was  not  to  effect  a  restoration  of  the  Union,  but  to  erect 
a  despotism;  that  the  war  had  been  turned  from  its  original 
purpose,  and  was  being  waged  "  for  the  liberation  of  the 
blacks  and  the  enslavement  of  the  whites  " ;  that  it  was  the 
purpose  of  the  administration  to  suppress  or  prevent  such 
meetings;  and  that  military  marshals  were  about  to  be  ap 
pointed  in  every  district,  who  would  act  for  the  purpose  of 
restricting  the  liberties  of  the  people.  He  was  a  freeman, 
however,  and  did  not  ask  David  Tod  nor  Abraham  Lin 
coln  nor  Ambrose  E.  Burnside  for  his  right  to  speak;  his 
authority  for  doing  so  was  higher  than  Order  Number  38 — 
it  was  Order  Number  i,  the  Constitution.  Order  Number 
38  was  a  base  usurpation  of  arbitrary  power ;  he  "  despised 
it,  spit  upon  it,  trampled  it  under  his  feet."  2 

Burnside  sent  two  of  his  officers  in  citizens'  clothes  to 

'The  Democratic  papers  estimated  the  number  at  20,000. 

2 As  this  speech  was  similar  to  those  Vallandigham  had  given  in 
several  places  during  the  preceding  weeks,  no  complete  report  of  it  was 
printed  in  the  papers.  The  author  has  followed  the  account  given  by 
Burnside's  officers  at  the  trial. 


162          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [298 

attend  the  meeting  and  takes  notes  on  the  speeches,  and 
these  reports  furnished  him  with  the  evidence  he  desired. 
Vallandigham  was  arrested  at  his  home  in  Dayton  early  in 
the  morning  of  May  5th  by  a  company  of  soldiers,  and 
taken  to  Cincinnati.1  A  military  commission  had  been  ap 
pointed  by  Burnside  some  days  previous,  and  before  it,  the 
prisoner  was  arraigned  on  the  charge  of,  "  publicly  express 
ing,  in  violation  of  General  Order  No.  38  ...  sympathy 
for  those  in  arms  against  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  and  declaring  disloyal  sentiments  and  opinions,  with 
the  object  and  purpose  of  weakening  the  power  of  the  gov 
ernment  in  its  efforts  to  suppress  an  unlawful  rebellion." 
Denying  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commission,  Vallandigham 
refused  to  plead,  and  the  plea  of  "  not  guilty  "  was  entered 
for  him.  Pugh  and  Pendleton  were  present  to  advise  with 
him,  but  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  waiving  the  question 
of  jurisdiction,  they  did  not  appear  at  the  trial.  The  only 
witnesses  examined  were  the  two  officers  and  Cox. 

At  the  close  of  the  testimony,  Vallandigham  submitted 
a  protest  holding  that  since  he  was  not  in  the  land  or  naval 
forces  of  the  United  States,  nor  in  the  militia  in  actual  ser 
vice  of  the  United  States,  he  was  not  triable  by  a  military 
commission,  but  subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  the  Consti 
tution  in  regard  to  trial,  and  further  that  the  "  alleged  " 
offense  was  not  known  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  nor  to  any  law  thereof. 

The  trial  lasted  for  two  days  closing  on  May  7th.  At 
once,  before  the  finding  of  the  commission  was  announced, 
Vallandigham,  through  his  counsel,  Pugh,  applied  to  Judge 

1  Burnside  did  not  consult  with  his  subordinates  nor  with  lawyers,  but 
sent  his  own  aide  with  the  soldiers  to  make  the  arrest.  He  did  not 
want  to  take  any  chances  of  being  baffled,  or  to  give  the  opportunity 
for  raising  a  mob.  See  J.  D.  Cox,  Military  Reminiscences,  vol.  i, 
p.  460. 


299]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

Leavitt  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  at  Cincinnati 
for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  with  the  idea  of  testing  the 
lawfulness  of  his  arrest  and  trial.  A  hearing  was  ap 
pointed,  and  the  question  was  elaborately  argued  during 
several  days.  A  statement  was  admitted  from  General 
Burnside  giving  his  reasons  for  the  issuance  of  the  order 
under  which  the  arrest  was  made.  In  it  he  asserted  that 
it  was  his  duty  and  the  duty  of  his  soldiers  not  to  indulge 
in  any  wholesale  criticism  of  the  policy  of  the  government 
whereby  the  power  of  the  army  would  be  weakened.  He 
had  been  placed  over  the  Department  at  a  time  when  Ken 
tucky,  one  of  the  states  composing  it,  was  actually  invaded 
and  when  three  others  had  been  threatened.  If  it  was  his 
duty  and  the  duty  of  the  troops  to  avoid  saying  anything 
that  would  weaken  the  army,  it  was  equally  the  duty  of 
every  citizen  in  the  Department  to  avoid  the  same  evil.  If 
that  were  not  done,  it  was  his  duty  to  use  all  the  force  in  his 
power  to  secure  the  desired  end.  Only  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  could 
inaugurate  a  legally  valid  war  policy,  and  if  the  people 
should  disapprove  that  policy,  they  might  change  those  au 
thorities  at  the  proper  time  and  by  the  proper  method. 
"Let  them  freely  discuss  the  policy  in  a  proper  tone;  but 
my  duty  requires  me  to  stop  license  and  intemperate  dis 
cussion  which  tends  to  weaken  the  authority  of  the  Govern 
ment  and  the  army."  So  long  as  he  possessed  any  power, 
it  would  be  used  in  defense  of  the  government  "  on  all 
occasions,  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  within  the 
Department."  l 

Pugh,  in  his  argument,  demanded  the  granting  of  the 
writ  as  of  right,  since  the  President  had  not  exercised  his 
authority  under  the  conscription  act  of  suspending  its 


.  Burnside  was  represented  at  the  hearing  by  the  U.  S.  District 
Attorney,  Flamen  Ball,  and  by  Aaron  F.  Perry. 


1 64          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [300 

privilege,  and  protested  against  argument  as  to  whether 
or  not  it  should  issue.  '  He  denied  that  Burnside's  duties  as 
major-general  gave  him  sole  charge  of  the  maintenance  of 
Federal  authority  in  that  neighborhood,  with  the  right  of 
taking  away  the  liberties  of  the  citizens.  Holding  an  office 
created  by  Congress,  he  could  not,  therefore,  make  a  "  law  " 
which  Congress  could  not  make,  abridging  the  freedom  of 
speech.  The  prisoner,  being  a  citizen  not  in  the  military 
service,  was  entitled  to  all  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  under  which  there  could  be  no  legal  arrest  except  by 
warrant.  In  other  words,  he  would  limit  the  authority  of 
the  general  to  the  control  of  his  troops  as  provided  by  the 
Articles  of  War. 

After  hearing  the  arguments  for  both  sides,  Judge  Leavitt 
rendered  his  opinion.  He  held  that  the  writ  was  not  grant- 
able  as  of  right,  but  only  on  sufficient  showing  that  it  ought 
to  issue;  and  its  refusal  would  be  justified  if  the  court 
was  satisfied  that  the  petitioner  would  not  be  discharged 
upon  a  hearing  after  its  return.  In  this  case,  Burnside 
had  acted  as  agent  of  the  President,  whose  powers  as  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the  army  were  not  defined  by  the  Con 
stitution  or  by  statute,  and  hence  were  not  reviewable  by 
the  courts.  While  the  court  had  the  power  to  grant  the 
writ,  it  could  not,  on  its  return,  go  into  the  question  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  military  commission,  and  hence  could 
not  discharge  the  prisoner.  This,  therefore,  was  sufficient 
ground  for  refusing  the  request.  To  the  President  alone, 
the  commander  must  answer  for  his  official  conduct.  This 
conclusion  was  fortified,  the  judge  held,  by  the  fact  that  the 
legislature  at  its  last  session  had  enacted  statutes  by  which 
the  validity  and  legality  of  arrests  in  the  state  made  under 
military  authority  were  distinctly  sanctioned.1 

1  The  whole  proceedings  of  the  trial  was  published  in :  The  Trial  of 
Hon.  Clement  L.  Vallandigham  by  a  Military  Commission,  Cincinnati, 
1863. 


301  ]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

The  finding  of  the  commission,  which  had  been  held  back 
awaiting  the  action  of  the  court,  was  made  public  on  May 
1 6th.  The  prisoner  was  found  guilty  of  the  charge,  and 
sentenced  "  to  be  placed  in  close  confinement  in  some  for 
tress  of  the  United  States,  to  be  designated  by  the  com 
manding  officer  of  this  Department,  there  to  be  kept  during 
the  continuance  of  the  war."  Burnside  approved  the  sen 
tence,  and  directed  that  the  place  of  confinement  be  Fort 
Warren  in  Boston  harbor.  Three  days  later,  the  President 
commuted  the  sentence  by  directing  that  Vallandigham  be 
sent  under  guard  "  to  the  head-quarters  of  General  Rose- 
crans,  to  be  put  by  him  beyond  our  military  lines,  and  that 
in  case  of  his  return  within  our  lines,  he  be  arrested  and 
kept  in  close  custody  for  the  term  specified  in  his  sentence." 
Accordingly,  on  May  22d  he  was  put  on  a  steamer  and 
taken  down  the  river,  and  on  the  25^  he  passed  over  into 
the  Confederate  lines. 

The  whole  procedure  in  regard  to>  Vallandigham  is  gen 
erally  conceded  to  have  been  a  serious  mistake  both  legally 
and  politically.  The  President's  proclamation  of  Septem 
ber  24,  1862,  which  made  persons  guilty  of  disloyal  prac 
tices  subject  to  martial  law  and  liable  to  trial  by  courts 
martial  or  military  commission,  had  not  been  formally  re 
voked,  but  the  authority  of  the  Executive  to  suspend  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  in  dispute  since  he  first 
exercised  it  at  the  beginning  of  the  war.1  And  this  pro 
clamation  was  superseded  by  the  act  of  March  3,  i863,2 
by  the  terms  of  which  Vallandigham  should  have  been  de 
livered  over  to  the  United  States  courts  and  his  case  pre 
sented  to  a  grand  jury.  Judge  Leavitt,  however,  took  no 
account  of  this  act  in  delivering  his  opinion,  but  rested  it 

1  See  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  155  et  seq. 
1  So  held  in  the  Milligan  case,  4  Wallace,  p.  133.     Cf.  also  Rhodes, 
History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  iv,  p.  248. 


166          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [302 

solely  on  the  war  power  of  the  President,  which,  he  held, 
could  be  exercised  without  a  prior,  formal  proclamation  of 
martial  law.  Burnside's  assumption  that,  since  war  was 
being  waged  in  Kentucky  and  had  been  threatened  in  Ohio 
some  months  before,1  he  was  justified  in  considering  the 
whole  Department  as  the  scene  of  actual  military  oper 
ations  and  hence  subject  to  martial  law,  can  scarcely  be  sus 
tained,  as  the  civil  government  was  in  no  way  suspended, 
and  the  courts  were  open  and  in  operation.  The  whole 
question  of  the  authority  of  military  commissions  was 
passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  December,  1866,  after 
the  excitement  of  the  war  had  passed.  It  was  then  held 
that  a  person  arrested  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March 
3d  was  entitled  to  his  discharge,  if  not  indicted  by  a  grand 
jury  convened  at  the  first  subsequent  term  of  the  United 
States  court  held  in  the  district  in  which  the  prisoner  was 
held;  and  also  that  military  commissions  had  no  jurisdiction 
over  criminal  offences  committed  by  a  person  not  in  the 
military  or  naval  service  of  the  United  States,  in  a  state  not 
the  actual  theatre  of  war  and  where  the  regular  courts  were 
open  and  in  the  proper  and  unobstructed  exercise  of  their 
judicial  functions.2 

Lincoln  did  not  desire  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham,3  and 
was  much  concerned  about  the  indiscretion  of  his  over- 
zealous  subordinate.  Yet,  through  the  Secretary  of  War  he 
gave  his  approval  of  the  act,4  and  the  Cabinet  was  in  favor 

1  Kirby  Smith  had  threatened  to  invade  the  state  in  September,  1862. 

2  Ex  parte  Milligan,  4  Wallace,  p.  2. 

3  A.  K.  McClure,  Reminiscences,  p.  228. 

*  Stanton  sent  a  message  to  Burnside,  May  8th:  "  In  your  determina 
tion  to  support  the  authority  of  the  Government  and  suppress  treason 
in  your  Department,  you  may  count  on  the  firm  support  of  the  Presi 
dent."  Official  Records  of  the  Rebellion,  series  i,  vol.  xxiii,  pt.  ii, 
p.  316. 


-503]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         ify 

of  upholding  it.1  However,  when  Burnside  issued  a  further 
order,  June  ist,  prohibiting  the  circulation  of  the  New 
York  World  in  his  Department,  and  suppressing  the  pub 
lication  of  the  Chicago  Times,  the  President,  on  the  request 
of  a  mass  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Chicago,  directed  him 
to  revoke  his  action.  A  few  days  later  Secretary  Stanton 
requested  Burnside  not  to  arrest  civilians  or  suppress  news 
papers  without  conferring  first  with  the  War  Department.2 

THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1863 

The  case  had  a  most  marked  effect  on  the  politics  of 
the  year,  not  only  in  Ohio,  but  throughout  the  North,  and 
brought  the  Peace  Democracy  into  a  prominence  it  would 
not  otherwise  have  reached.  During  the  early  months  of 
the  year  there  was  considerable  discord  between  the  radical 
and  moderate  elements  of  the  party  in  the  state.  While 
immense  crowds  assembled  at  the  Democratic  mass  meet 
ings,  and  the  enthusiasm  ran  high,  yet  these  crowds  did  not 
measure  the  strength  of  Vallandigham.  Many  who  were 
opposed  to  his  views  were  attracted  to  his  speeches  by  the 
fascination  of  his  oratory.  It  is  probable  that  only  a  ^small 
minority  within  the  party  were  willing  to  support  his  plan 
for  securing  peace.  After  he  had  announced  his  candidacy, 
the  moderate  element  started  a  movement  to  secure  the 
nomination  of  Jewett,  and  this  soon  became  so  formidable 
as  to  threaten  a  disruption  of  the  party.3  At  a  meeting 
of  the  state  central  committee,  March  25th,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  bring  the  two  elements  together  and  arrange  some 

1  Lincoln,  Complete  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  342. 

2O.  R.,  series  i,  vol.  xxiii,  pt.  ii,  p.  386,  and  J.  D.  Cox,  Reminis 
cences,  p.  463.  Gen.  Cox  is  inclined  to  criticise  the  administration  for 
not  formulating  a  rule  for  its  military  officers  to  guide  them  in  such 
cases. 

3  The  Plain  Dealer,  Statesman  and  Enquirer  supported  Jewett. 


168          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [304 

concerted  plan  of  action  against  the  arbitrary  measures  and 
usurpations  of  the  administration,  but  the  committee  being 
about  equally  divided,  no  action  could  be  taken.1  The 
falling-off  in  the  Democratic  vote  in  the  spring  elections 
and  the  defeat  of  Seymour  in  Connecticut  tended  further  to 
reflect  discredit  on  the  radical  platform,  and  to  increase  the 
probability  of  Jewett's  nomination. 

But  the  feeling  of  indignation  aroused  by  the  arrest  of 
Vallandigham  tended  to  dissolve  all  opposition.  His 
prominence  gave  the  case  a  wide  notoriety,  while  the  pun 
ishment  inflicted  clothed  him  with  the  character  of  a  martyr 
and  called  for  his  vindication.  Just  before  his  departure 
from  Cincinnati,  he  sounded  a  trumpet  call  to  action  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  the  Democracy  of  Ohio.  Banished  from 
his  native  state  "  for  no  crime  save  Democratic  opinions 
and  free  speech,"  and  about  to  go  into  exile  "  by  the  com 
pulsion  of  an  arbitrary  and  tyrannic  power,"  he  still  recog 
nized  his  allegiance  to>  his  own  state  and  government. 
Every  sentiment  of  attachment  to  the  Union  and  devotion 
to  the  Constitution  would  abide  unchanged  until  his  return. 
In  the  meantime  he  did  not  doubt  that  "  the  people  of  Ohio, 
cowering  not  a  moment  before  the  threats  or  the  exercise 
of  arbitrary  power,"  would  "  prove  themselves  worthy  to 
be  called  freemen."  2 

The  first  formal  note  of  protest  came  from  a  meeting 
held  at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  on  May  i6th.  Governor  Seymour, 
unable  to  be  present,  sent  a  letter  characterizing  the  action  of 
Burnside  as  clearly  signifying  the  establishment  of  military 
despotism.3  Resolutions  were  adopted  and  transmitted  to 
the  President  denouncing  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham  as  an 
assumption  of  power  which  struck  a  fatal  blow  at  the  su- 

1  Crisis,  April  ist. 

9 Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  296.  3 Ibid,,  p.  289. 


305]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

premacy  of  law,  and  calling  upon  the  President  to  reverse 
the  action  of  the  military  tribunal.1 

While  this  was  the  voice  of  the  conservative  Democracy 
of  New  York,  speaking  immediately  after  the  sentence  had 
been  made  public  and  before  it  had  been  commuted,  the 
Peace  element  pronounced  its  disapproval  in  less  measured 
terms  after  the  prisoner  had  been  banished.  At  a  large 
meeting  held  in  New  York  city,  June  3d,  for  the  purpose 
of  enunciating  anew  the  doctrines  of  peace,  an  address  and 
resolutions  were  adopted  expressing  the  state-rights  doc 
trine  in  its  most  extreme  form.  They  declared  that  the 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  were  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Democratic  party;  that  a  war  could  not 
be  sustained  against  sovereign  states;  that  the  war  in  its 
inception  and  further  continuance  being  contrary  to  the 
Constitution,  must  fast  consume  all  the  elements  of 
union,  and  had  already  become  a  failure.  The  trial  of 
citizens  by  courts  martial  was  denounced  as  "  monstrous  in 
theory  and  execrable  in  practice."  It  was  hoped  that  the 
people  of  Ohio  would  have  the  opportunity  of  passing  con 
demnation  of  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham  by  electing  him 
the  next  governor  of  the  state.  Finally,  the  resolutions 
called  for  a  suspension  of  hostilities  and  for  two  conven 
tions,  one  of  the  seceded  states,  and  one  of  the  states  still 
adhering  to  the  Union,  to  determine  by  what  mode  the  con 
tending  sections  should  be  reconciled.2 

While  the  Union  Leagues  endorsed  the  finding  of  the 
military  commission,  and  demanded  that  the  sentence  be 
carried  out,  there  was  a  considerable  feeling  among  the  mod 
erate  Unionists  that  it  worked  a  great  injustice,  and  it  was 
on  the  suggestion  of  their  press  and  the  advice  of  Governor 

1  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  163. 
1  New  York  Times,  June  4,  1863. 


170          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [306 

Tod  l  that  the  President  sent  Vallandigham  into  rebel  ter 
ritory  and  thus  turned  the  affair  into  something  of  a  joke. 
However,  it  revived  the  whole  subject  of  arbitrary  arrests, 
and  presented  again  the  issue  O'f  personal  liberty  on  which 
the  Democrats  had  won  success  in  the  elections  of  the 
previous  year,  with  its  champion  a  martyr  to  the  cause. 

June  nth  was  the  date  fixed  for  the  holding  of  the 
Democratic  state  convention.  During  the  preceding  days 
the  tide  of  popular  opinion  set  in  with  increasing  strength 
until  it  became  a  clamor  on  the  part  of  the  masses  of  the 
party  for  the  nomination  of  Vallandigham.  Jewett,  seeing 
the  drift  of  sentiment,  withdrew  from  the  field.  A  last  ef 
fort  was  made  by  the  moderate  element  to  turn  the  tide  by 
bringing  forward  General  McClellan  as  a  candidate,2  but 
he  refused  to1  permit  his  name  to-  be  used. 

The  convention  assembled  at  Columbus  amid  the  greatest 
enthusiasm.  In  point  of  attendance  it  had  never  been 
equaled  in  the  state.3  Ex-Governor  Medill 4  presided,  and  in 
his  speech  to  the  delegates  said  that  Vallandigham  must  be 
brought  back. 

If  they  are  not  deaf,  your  recreant  rulers  will  be  warned  by 
this  tremendous  demonstration,  that  the  people  are  no  longer 
to  be  trifled  with  in  their  dearest  rights  and  most  sacred  privi 
leges,  and  the  powers  who  have  aroused  you,  will  quake  and 
tremble  before  this  mighty  and  terrific  assembly  of  the  free 

1  Gen.  Wright  in  Ohio  Arch,  and  Hist.  Soc.  Pub.,  vol.  viii,  p.  116. 

2  Plain  Dealer,  June  gth, 

3 The  Plain  Dealer  estimated  the  attendance  at  25,000.  The  Crisis 
placed  it  at  from  75,000  to  100,000,  stating  that  on  the  convention  day 
alone  15,000  railroad  tickets  were  sold  and  that  only  the  smallest  num 
ber  came  by  rail.  The  crowds  began  to  gather  several  days  before  the 
convention  met.  Large  numbers  came  by  wagon  traveling  in  some 
cases  over  100  miles. 

4  Democratic  governor  of  the  state,  1853-1855. 


307]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY         iji 

men  of  Ohio,  and  recede  from  their  despotic  course  as  they 
did  in  Chicago  the  other  day. 

The  temper  of  the  delegates  was  bold,  and  their  desires 
were  unmistakable.  Vallandigham  and  Olds  were  to  be 
their  candidates,  and  for  a  platform  "  Vallandigham  was 
platform  enough." 

On  an  informal  ballot,  Jewett,  whose  name  had  been  pro 
posed,  received  only  eleven  votes,  and  with  extravagant 
demonstrations  of  enthusiasm,  Vallandigham  was  nomin 
ated  by  acclamation.  As  the  one  most  closely  associated 
with  the  candidate,  Pugh  was  called  upon  to  represent  him 
in  accepting  the  nomination.  In  a  speech  many  times  more 
violent  than  any  of  Vallandigham's  utterances,  he  said  that 
while  he  had  not  agreed  with  the  nominee  as  to  the  possi 
bility  of  deciding  upon  terms  of  peace  by  which  the  war 
might  be  settled,  yet  in  order  to  decide  the  issue  raised  in 
any  way  at  all,  freedom  of  speech  and  debate  must  be  al 
lowed.  He  would  not  submit  for  one  hour  to  the  exer 
cise  of  arbitrary,  despotic,  and  irresponsible  power.  The 
Democracy  had  already  submitted  to  more  of  it  than  any 
other  people  would  have  done,  but  there  was  a  limit.  He 
defied  "  Order  Number  38." 

I  can  die  but  once,  and  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  in  battle 
or  by  a  mock  trial  and  sentence  of  a  sham  military  commis 
sion — let  the  debt  be  gloriously  paid  in  defense  of  liberty.  I 
scorn  your  Order  Number  38.  I  spurn,  I  execrate,  I  trample 
under  foot  the  order  of  any  military  officer  defining  treason 
and  prescribing  liberty.  Come  what  will,  come  imprisonment, 
exile,  stripes,  hard  labor,  death,  I  defy  Order  Number  38. 

He  called  upon  the  members  of  the  convention  to  act  in  case 
he  was  dragged  before  a  military  commission.  If  they  did 
not  act,  he  was  determined  to  maintain  his  rights  at  the  cost 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [308 

of  his  life.  If  the  Democracy  should  fail  in  the  election  in 
October,  he  advised  them  to  migrate  to  some  other  land 
where  they  might  enjoy  that  liberty  as  citizens  which  they 
could  no  longer  enjoy  in  their  home  country.  In  conclusion 
he  entreated  them  in  the  name  of  the  one  hundred  and  eighty 
thousand  Democrats  of  Ohio  not  to  disperse  until  they  had 
demanded  of  Lincoln  the  restoration  of  the  person  whom 
they  had  nominated  for  their  candidate. 

This  inflammatory  address  stampeded  the  convention,  and 
in  spite  of  his  protests  and  refusal,  Pugh  was  nominated 
for  lieutenant-governor  to  lead  the  campaign.  Van  Trump 
was  placed  on  the  ticket  as  the  candidate  for  supreme  judge, 
and  the  remaining  offices  were  given  to  good  Peace  men. 

After  the  ticket  had  been  nominated,  the  matter  of  a  plat 
form  gave  the  delegates  little  concern,  and  its  construction 
was  left  to  the  party  leaders.  As  adopted,  it  was  rather 
conservative  considering  the  candidates.  The  Democratic 
party  was  declared  to  be  a  law-abiding  party,  asking  noth 
ing  but  its  rights  under  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  seek 
ing  to  carry  what  it  proposed,  not  by  force,  but  by  legal 
enactment.  While  obeying  the  Constitution  itself,  it  had 
a  right  to  demand  that  all  others  should  do  the  same. 
Recognizing  that  every  citizen  owed  allegiance  to  the  gov 
ernment,  "  which  consists  of  the  civil  and  political  institu 
tions  created  by  the  Constitution,"  the  right  of  criticising 
the  administration  which  was  "  but  the  agent  of  the  peo 
ple,"  was  distinctly  averred.  In  accordance  with  that 
right,  the  resolutions  protested  against  the  Emancipation 
Proclamation;  the  scheme  of  compensated  emancipation; 
and  the  proclamation  of  martial  law  in  states  where  war 
was  not  existing.  Neither  Vallandigham's  plan  for  se 
curing  peace,  nor  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Peace  Demo 
crats  of  New  York,  was  endorsed,  but  it  was  declared  that 
the  Democracy  of  Ohio  "  would  hail  with  pleasure  and  de- 


309]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

light  any  manifestation  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  se 
ceded  States  to  return  to  their  allegiance  to  the  Government 
of  the  Union,"  and  in  such  an  event  would  "  cordially 
and  earnestly  cooperate  with  them  in  the  restoration  of  peace 
and  the  procurement  of  such  proper  guarantees  as  would 
give  security  to  all  their  interests  and  rights."  Whenever 
it  should  become  practicable  to  obtain  a  convention  of  all 
or  three-fourths  of  the  states,  such  body  should  be  convened 
to  propose  such  amendments  to  the  Constitution  "  as  experi 
ence  has  proved  to  be  necessary  to  maintain  that  instrument 
in  the  spirit  and  meaning  intended  by  its  founders."  The 
guarantees  of  the  Constitution  violated  by  the  arrest  of 
Vallandigham  were  quoted  at  length.  Considering  the  fact 
that  at  the  time  of  his  arrest  he  was  a  prominent  candi 
date  for  the  governorship,  it  was  asserted  "  that  the  Demo 
cratic  party  was  fully  competent  to  decide  whether  he  was 
a  fit  man  for  that  nomination,  and  that  the  attempt  to  de 
prive  them  of  that  right  .  .  .  was  an  unmerited  imputation 
on  their  intelligence  and  loyalty  as  well  as  a  violation  of  the 
Constitution."  The  President  was  "  respectfully  but  most 
earnestly  "  called  upon  to  restore  him  to  his  home,  and  a 
committee  of  one  from  each  congressional  district  of  the 
state  was  created  to  apply  for  such  action.  Governor 
Seymour  was  thanked  for  his  "  noble  letter,"  while  the 
course  of  Governor  Tod,  in  not  only  failing  to  protect  the 
citizens  of  the  state  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  constitu 
tional  rights,  but  actually  participating  in  their  violation, 
was  "  beheld  with  deep  humiliation  and  regret."  Finally, 
those  who  were  representing  the  Democratic  party  as  want 
ing  in  sympathy  wtih  the  soldiers  in  the  field  were  denounced 
as  libelers  and  slanderers.  "  It  is  an  outrage  upon  the 
Democratic  party,  that  has  always  stood  by  the  country,  to 
assert  that  it  is  not  the  friend  of  its  gallant  defenders." 
A  real  "  state  sovereignty  "  faction  appeared  in  the  con- 


174          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [3x0 

vention  headed  by  William  H.  Cory  of  Cincinnati,  who  pre 
sented  a  series  of  resolutions  which  had  been  adopted  a  few 
days  before  in  the  Madison  county  convention.  They  de 
clared  in  favor  of  an  immediate  termination  of  the  war  and 
a  separation  of  the  sections,  because  the  North  had  failed 
either  by  arms  or  by  argument  to  sustain  her  right  of  con 
quest,  and  because  the  South  was  decided  to  separate  from 
the  Union  at  all  hazards.  An  attempt  was  made  to  have 
these  resolutions  adopted  as  a  substitute  for  the  platform 
as  reported,  but  the  convention  refused,  to  receive  them. 

On  June  26th,  the.  committee  selected  by  the  convention 
to  wait  upon  the  President  in  regard  to  the  release  of  Val- 
landigham,  presented  a  formal  request  embodying  the  re 
solutions  of  the  convention.  A  few  days  before  this  Lin 
coln,  in  replying  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Albany  meeting,' 
made  perhaps  the  best  argument  possible  under  the  circum 
stances.  In  substance  this  reply  was  as  follows.  Since  the 
resolutions  indicated  that  the  meeting  was  in  favor  of  sup 
pressing  the  rebellion  by  military  force,  he  would  neces 
sarily  infer  that  those  present  would  oppose  anything  which 
would  tend  to-  weaken  that  force.  Many  things  not  cog 
nizable  in  the  ordinary  courts  would  do  this.  Vallandig- 
ham's  arrest  had  been  made  because  he  was  laboring  to  pre 
vent  the  raising  of  troops,  and  to  encourage  deserters,  thus 
weakening  the  army.  The  Constitution  authorized  the 
suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  cases  of  rebellion, 
whenever  the  public  safety  might  require  it.  This,  he  con 
tended,  was  done  "  on  purpose  that  men  may  be  arrested  and 
held  who  cannot  be  proved  to  be  guilty  o-f  defined  crime," 
when  the  public  safety  required  it.  Such  arrests  were  con 
stitutional  wherever  the  public  safety  required  them.  "  The 
Constitution  is  not,  in  its  application,  in  all  respects  the 
same,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  involving  the  public 
safety,  as  it  is  in  time  of  profound  peace  and  public  security. 


3i i ]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

The  Constitution  itself  makes  the  distinction."  In  his  own 
discretion  he  was  not  sure  that  he  would  have  ordered  Val- 
landigham's  arrest.  "  It  gave  me  pain  when  I  learned  that 
Mr.  Vallandigham  had  been  arrested — that  is  I  was  pained 
that  there  should  have  seemed  to  be  a  necessity  for  arrest 
ing  him, — and  it  will  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  discharge 
him  as  soon  as  I  can,  by  any  means,  believe  the  public 
safety  will  not  suffer  by  it." 

In  presenting  their  request,  the  Ohio  committee  took  ex 
ception  to  several  of.  these  propositions.  Sent  by  a  conven 
tion  "  representing  a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,"  they  asked  for  the  release  of  Vallandigham  "  as  a 
right  due  to  an  American  citizen,  in  whose  personal  injury 
the  sovereignty  and  dignity  of  the  people  of  Ohio,  as  a  free 
State  have  been  offended."  To  the  President's  statement 
that  he  would  revoke  the  sentence  so  soon  as  he  thought  the 
public  safety  would  not  suffer  by  it,  they  retorted  that  from 
their  own  personal  knowledge  of  the  feelings  of  the  people 
of  Ohio,  the  public  safety  would  be  far  more  endangered  by 
continuing  Vallandigham  in  exile  than  by  releasing  him. 
They  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  charge  against 
the  prisoner  did  not  impute  to  him  either  of  the  offenses 
mentioned  by  the  President,  and  that  the  evidence  at  the 
trial  did  not  support  any  such  charge.  If  the  views  ex 
pressed  did  encourage  someone  to  desert  and  that  was  a 
sufficient  reason  for  his  conviction,  then  every  opponent  of 
the  Mexican  war,  the  President  included,  might  have  been 
so  convicted  and  banished.  Exception  was  taken  to  the  ide'a 
that  the  Constitution  was  any  different  in  time  of  war  from 
what  it  was  in  time  of  peace,  and  that  the  power  of  Congress 
to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  carried  with  it  the  sus 
pension  of  the  constitutional  guarantees  of  personal  liberty. 
Finally,  the  committee  protested  against  the  idea  that  a 
person  arrested  for  regularly  defined  treason  should  be  en- 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [312 

titled  to  the  constitutional  safeguards,  but  when  arrested 
without  charge  of  crime,  he  should  not  be.  The  people  of 
Ohio  were  willing  to  cooperate  in  every  effort  to  restore  the 
Union  of  the  states,  "  but  they  cannot  consent  to  abandon 
those  fundamental  principles  of  civil  liberty  which  are  es 
sential  to  their  existence  as  a  free  people." 

In  his  reply  the  President  decidedly  weakened  his  side 
of  the  case  by  quibbling  over  the  interpretation  of  his 
Albany  letter.  He  was  unable  to  perceive  an  insult  to 
Ohio  in  the  matter,  and  was  wholly  unaware  at  the  time 
of  the  arrest  that  Vallandigham  was  a  candidate  for  the 
Democratic  nomination  for  governor.  By  the  nomination 
O'f  Vallandigham  for  governor  when  his  views,  expressed 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  included  the  known  assertion  that 
an  army  was  not  the  proper  means  for  suppressing  the 
rebellion,  the  Democratic  party  in  Ohio  assumed  the  atti 
tude  of  encouraging  desertions  from  the  army  and  resist 
ance  to  the  draft.  He  did  not  think  they  desired  that  ef 
fect  to  follow  their  attitude,  and  hence  to  dispel  that  idea 
he  submitted  three  propositions,  on  the  endorsement  of 
which  by  a  majority  of  the  committee,  he  would  cause  their 
names  to  be  published  and  that  should  be  in  itself  a  revoca 
tion  of  the  order  in  relation  to  Vallandigham.  These  propo 
sitions  were:  (i)  that  there  was  in  progress  a  rebellion  to 
destroy  the  national  Union,  and  in  their  opinion  an  army 
and  navy  were  constitutional  means  for  suppressing  it; 
(2)  that  no  one  of  them  would  do  anything  which  in  his 
own  judgment  would  tend  to  lessen  the  efficiency  of  the 
army  and  navy  while  engaged  in  the  effort  to  suppress  that 
rebellion;  (3)  that  each  of  them  would  do  all  he  could  to 
have  the  soldiers  and  sailors,  while  engaged  in  the  effort  to 
suppress  the  rebellion,  well  provided  for  and  supported. 

In  their  rejoinder,  the  committee  expressed  surprise  at 
the  conditions  suggested.  Their  opinions  were  well  known, 


313]       VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

and  they  could  not  suppose  the  President  expected  that  they 
would  seek  the  discharge  of  their  candidate,  "  by  a  pledge 
implying  not  only  an  imputation  upon  their  own  sincerity 
and  fidelity  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  also  carry 
ing  with  it  by  implication  a  concession  of  the  legality  of  the 
arrest."  The  committee  had  no  authority  to  enter  into  any 
bargain  or  pledge  for  Vallandigham's  release;  they  had 
asked  it  as  a  right  due  to  the  people  of  Ohio.1 

Much  better  would  it  have  been,  had  Mr.  Lincoln  re 
scinded  the  sentence  of  the  military  commission  and  al 
lowed  Vallandigham  to  go  free,  especially  since  Burnside 
was  rendered  powerless  to  enforce  his  order  in  any  subse 
quent  case.  The  defiant  speech  of  Pugh  in  the  convention, 
and  the  open  ridicule  of  the  order  by  the  other  Democratic 
speakers,  led  to  an  earnest  request  to  the  President  to  have 
it  either  rescinded  or  enforced,  since  it  was  becoming  a  joke.2 

In  the  meantime  the  exile  traveled  through  the  Con 
federate  states  and  reached  Wilmington,  from  which  port 
he  ran  the  blockade  and  succeeded  in  reaching  Canada,  es 
tablishing  his  headquarters  at  the  Clifton  House  on  the 
Canadian  side  of  Niagara  Falls.  From  this  place  on  July 
1 5th,  he  issued  an  address  to  the  people  of  Ohio  accepting 
the  nomination.  He  considered  it 

1  The  entire  correspondence  between  the  President  and  the  Albany 
and  Ohio  committees  is  given  in  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion, 
pp.  163-175. 

1  Ashley  to  Chase.     Chase  Papers,  MS. 
A  stanza  of  one  of  the  popular  campaign  songs  of  the  year  ran: 

O,  brothers,  dont  forget  the  time 

When  Burnside  was  our  fate, 

And  laws  were  superseded 

By  order  38. 

Then  like  a  free-born  western  man, 

Our  Val  spoke  bold  and  true, 

O,  when  he's  chosen  governor 

What  will  poor  Burnside  do. 

Wont  he  skedaddle, 

As  he's  well  used  to  do. 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

an  act  of  courage  worthy  of  the  heroic  ages  of  the  world; 
it  was  a  spectacle  and  a  rebuke  to  the  usurping  tyrants  who, 
having  broken  up  the  Union,  would  now  strike  down  the  Con 
stitution,  subvert  your  present  government,  and  establish  a 
formal  and  proclaimed  despotism  in  its  stead. 

He  held  the  issue  involved  to  be  free  speech,  a  free  press, 
peaceable  assemblages  of  the  people  and  a  free  ballot.  If 
"  military  necessity  "  be  the  pretext  for  all  the  acts  and 
claims  to  arbitrary  power,  he  warned  his  fellow  citizens 
that  their  liberty  was  gone  and  tyranny  was  perpetual. 

For  if  this  civil  war  is  to  terminate  only  by  the  subjugation 
or  submission  of  the  South  to  force  of  arms,  the  infant  of 
to-day  will  not  live  to  see  the  end  of  it.  ...  Traveling  a  thou 
sand  miles  and  more  through  nearly  one-half  of  the  Confed 
erate  States,  and  sojourning  for  a  time  at  widely  different 
points,  I  met  not  one  man  who  was  not  resolved  to  perish  rather 
than  yield  to  the  pressure  of  arms  even  in  the  utmost  extrem 
ity.  .  .  .  Neither,  let  me  add,  did  I  meet  anyone,  whatever  his 
opinions  or  his  state,  political  or  private,  who  did  not  de 
clare  his  readiness,  when  the  war  shall  have  ceased  and  in 
vading  armies  been  withdrawn,  to  consider  and  discuss  the 
question  of  reunion.1 

At  this  distance,  it  is  difficult  to  appreciate  the  intensity 
of  feeling  which  prevailed  throughout  the  campaign.  Dur 
ing  the  months  of  July,  August  and  September  it  was 
waged  with  a  vigor  and  excitement  that  have  never  been 
equaled  in  the  state.  It  was  the  high  tide  of  Vallandig- 
ham's  career,  and  but  for  the  victories  at  Vicksburg  and 
Gettysburg  might  have  resulted  in  his  election  to  the  gov 
ernorship.  Both  parties  made  a  thorough  canvass  with  the 
best  talent  at  their  command.2 

1  Crisis,  July  22d. 

*Pugh,  Thurman,  Pendleton,  Cox  and  Medary  led  the  Democrats  in 


315]         VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

Pugh  made  a  strenuous  campaign,  speaking  in  every 
section  of  the  state.  He  recounted  the  cost  of  the  war  in 
men  and  money  and  asked  if  there  was  not  some  better  way. 
While  Lincoln  had  been  elected  according  to  the  forms  of 
the  Constitution,  he  was  not  to  be  obeyed  when  he  over 
stepped  its  bounds.  "And  when  he  attempts  to  compel 
obedience  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Constitution  by  bayonets 
and  by  swords,  I  say  that  he  is  a  base  and  despotic  usurper, 
whom  it  is  your  duty  to  resist  by  every  possible  means  and 
if  necessary  by  force  of  arms."  He  held  that  there  was 
no  difference  between  the  secessionists  and  Abolitionists 
except  geographically;  that  the  South  had  struck  the  first 
blow,  but  the  Abolitionists  had  provoked  it.1  Thurman 
took  up  the  opposition  to  the  war  of  1812,  and  the  Mexican 
war,  and  asked  if  Senator  Tom  Corwin  was  a  traitor  when 
he  said  that  if  he  were  a  Mexican,  he  would  "  welcome 
the  American  soldiers  with  bloody  hands  to  hospitable 
graves."  2  All  the  Democratic  speakers  made  a  most  power 
ful  appeal  for  the  election  of  their  candidate  because  of  the 
principle  involved.  Their  counts  against  the  administration 
were :  the  violation  of  the  principles  of  constitutional  liberty 
and  the  rights  of  an  American  citizen;  the  attempt  to  create 
a  despotism  by  usurpation  of  power;  and  the  miserable 
failure  of  the  war,  which  had  been  changed  from  its  original 

the  campaign  with  the  assistance  of  Voorhees  and  Thomas  H.  Seymour. 
Neither  Jewett,  Ranney  nor  Payne  took  any  part,  the  first  declining  even 
the  single  appointment  made  for  him  by  the  committee.  The  Plain 
Dealer  did  not  print  the  ticket  or  make  any  mention  of  it  editorially 
until  the  end  of  July.  For  the  Unionists,  Brough,  Tod,  Senators  Wade 
and  Sherman,  the  members  of  Congress  from  the  various  districts  of 
the  state,  and  all  the  other  available  talent  was  made  use  of.  Many 
speakers  were  sent  in  from  the  other  states  to  assist;  the  most  important 
being  Governors  Morton  of  Indiana,  and  Yates  of  Illinois. 

1  See  Marysville  speech;  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  August  2ist. 

1  Cleveland  speech;  Crisis,  July  8th. 


l8o          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [316 

purpose  to  one  of  emancipation  and  confiscation.  Val- 
landigham  seriously  contemplated  coming  into  the  state 
to  take  part  in  the  canvass,  but  was  persuaded  not  to  do  so 
by  his  friends  on  account  of  the  danger  involved.1  He  con 
tented  himself  by  writing  a  series  of  letters  to  the  people  of 
Ohio,  and  thus  injecting  his  peace  doctrines  into  the  dis 
cussions. 

In  the  face  of  these  arguments,  the  Unionists  began  their 
campaign  under  considerable  disadvantage  and  with  much 
hesitation  and  doubt.  Dwelling  little  on  the  conduct  of  the 
war  and  passing  emancipation  by  as  a  settled  fact,  they  made 
their  appeal  for  support  on  the  ground  that  the  whole  ques 
tion  of  national  existence  was  at  stake  and  that  the  election 
of  a  "  convicted  traitor  "  would  be  a  disgrace  to  the  state.2 

Immense  crowds  attended  the  meetings  of  both  parties.* 

1  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  349. 

Senator  Sherman  in  his  Recollections,  vol.  i,  p.  324,  says:  "It  was 
manifest  that  if  Vallandigham  entered  the  state  he  would  be  in  great 
danger,  and  a  quasi-civil  war  might  have  arisen.  I  heard  men  of  char 
acter  and  influence  say  distinctly  that  if  he  came  into  the  state  he  would 
be  killed.  .  .  Senator  Wade  and  I  met  at  Washington  and  had  a  con 
versation  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  We  told  him  the  condition  of  feeling  in 
Ohio  and  of  our  confident  belief  that  if  his  order  of  banishment  was 
revoked,  it  would  result  in  riots  and  violence." 

2  Murat  Halsteadof  the  Cincinnati  Commercial -wrote  to  Chase,  August 
24th,  complaining  in  bitter  terms  about  the  administration  of  war  affairs. 
He  said  that  now  since  Burnside  had  left  the  city  they  would  beat  Val 
landigham  without  the  soldiers'  vote  if  there  could  be  a  few  minutes 
quiet  on  the  negro  question.     "  But  it  is  worth  while  to  say  what  here 
we  all  know  that  if  the  vote  were  taken  in  Ohio  between  Vallandigham 
and  the  radical  policy  of  the  President,  the  foolish  and  hopelessly  im 
practicable  proclamation,    the  election  of  Vallandigham  would  be  the 
result.     The  essential  thing  is  to  keep  the  administration  out  of  sight  as 
much  as  possible,  and  talk  of  the  cause  of  nationality  and  nothing  else." 
Chase  Papers,  MS. 

3  The  Crisis,  August  5th,  gave  estimates  of  the  numbers  in  attendance 
at  some  of  the  Democratic  meetings  as  follows :  "  Such  meetings  as  are 
now  seen  of  the  Democracy  everywhere  in  this  State  have  never  before 


317]        VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY        jgi 

It  was  usually  necessary  to  have  speaking  going  on  from 
several  stands  simultaneously,  while  addresses  of  three  or 
four  hours  in  length  were  not  uncommon.  Butternut  and 
copperhead  emblems  were  conspicuous  at  the  Democratic 
meetings.  Their  parades  always  contained  some  allegori 
cal  representation  of  the  thirty-four  states,  while  their  ban 
ners  bore  such  inscriptions  as,  "  Vallandigham  and  Liberty," 
"  Peace  and  Union."  One  of  the  correspondents  of  the 
London  Times  wrote  to  his  paper :  "  Vallandigham  waits 
and  watches  over  the  border,  pledged  if  elected  governor  of 
Ohio  to  array  it  against  Lincoln  and  the  war  and  go  for 
peace."  l  This  was  much  quoted  in  the  press,  and  "  wait 
ing  and  watching  over  the  border  "  became  one  of  the  popu 
lar  expressions  of  the  day. 

In  the  midst  of  the  campaign,  a  little  band  of  about  two 
hundred  "  War  Democrats  "  held  a  convention,2  and  de 
clared  themselves  opposed  to  peace  on  other  terms  than  un 
conditional  submission  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States.  They  held  that  the  nomination  of  Vallan 
digham  was  a  great  mistake  and  one  which  if  approved  and 
sanctioned  by  the  people  at  the  polls  would  seriously  en 
danger  the  perpetuity  of  the  government. 

By  the  law  enacted  early  in  the  year,  the  Ohio  troops,  for 

been  witnessed ;  were  not  even  approached  in  the  days  of  the  political 
revolution  of  1840.  At  Bellefontain,  on  the  2Qth,  the  crowd  swelled  to 
fifteen  thousand.  At  Marysville  .  .  .  some  ten  thousand  were  present; 
and  on  Friday,  at  Delaware,  the  concourse  ranged  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
thousand,  with  thirteen  hundred  vehicles  in  procession,  and  regiments 
of  voters  on  horseback.  .  .  At  Circleville,  on  Saturday,  the  meeting 
reached  forty  thousand."  Of  course  allowance  must  be  made  for  the 
exaggerations  of  a  political  campaign  in  these  estimates. 

1  Letter  of  August  I7th.  The  Times  correspondent  visited  Vallandig 
ham  in  Canada  and  wrote  several  letters  strongly  favorable  to  his 
interests. 

3  At  Columbus,  September  22d. 


1 82  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

the  first  time  since  the  war  began,  would  have  a  part  in  the 
election,  and  both  parties  made  strong  bids  for  their  votes. 
However,  since  similar  laws  had  been  declared  unconstitu 
tional  in  some  of  the  states  during  the  year,1  there  was  some 
doubt  about  the  validity  of  the  measure,  and  it  was  realized 
that  the  election  must  be  lost  or  won  on  the  home  vote. 
Some  of  the  Democratic  papers  openly  proclaimed  that  if 
their  candidate  had  a  majority  otherwise,  they  would  not 
consider  the  vote  of  the  soldiers. 

As  the  time  for  the  election  approached,  the  exertions 
of  the  contending  parties  were  redoubled,  and  the  tone  of 
the  speakers  became  correspondingly  more  violent.  Pugh 
announced  that  if  Vallandigham  were  elected,  there  would 
be  fifty-thousand  "  stalwart  able-bodied  men,  fully  armed 
and  equipped,  freemen  of  Ohio,  to  receive  their  Governor- 
elect  at  the  Canadian  line  and  escort  him  to  the  State  House 
to  see  that  he  takes  the  oath  of  office,"  and  Voorhees  pledged 
the  cooperation  of  the  Democrats  of  Indiana.  With  this  in 
mind,  Brough  asserted  that  the  effect  of  the  election  of 
Vallandigham  would  be  to  precipitate  civil  war  in  the  state. 

For  I  tell  you  there  is  a  mighty  mass  of  men  in  the  State 
whose  nerves  are  strung  up  like  steel,  who  will  never  permit 
this  dishonor  to  be  consummated  in  their  native  State.  An 
other  effect  will  be  that  it  will  be  an  invitation  to  the  rebels  in 
arms  to  come  up  and  take  possession  of  our  soil. 

The  Union  Leagues  were  active  in  distributing  literature 
over  the  state,  while  the  Democrats  published  "  The  Val 
landigham  Record  "  made  up  of  the  principal  speeches  of 
their  candidate. 

1  In  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania  and  New  Hampshire.  The  basis  of 
the  decisions  was  the  constitutional  requirement  for  voting  at  the  place 
of  residence.  The  Ohio  law  was  later  held  constitutional.  Lehman  vs. 
McBride,  15  Ohio  State  Reports,  p.  573. 


ELECTION  fr  GOVERNOR 
1863 

Unionist  Counties  Shaded 
Democratic  Counties  Unshaded 


319]         V ALLAN DIGH AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

The  people  were  left,  therefore,  at  the  close  of  the  cam 
paign  with  the  prospect  of  a  civil  war  as  a  result  of  their 
election.  The  Democrats  were  confident  of  victory,  \vhile 
B rough  claimed  a  majority  of  at  least  five  thousand  on  the 
home  vote.1  The  Unionists  took  every  precaution  to  bring 
out  the  full  strength  of  their  vote.  Chase  was  urged  to  see 
that  the  Ohio  people  in  the  Treasury  Department  were  per 
mitted  to  go  home  to  vote,2  and  he  himself  headed  the 
delegation. 

The  result  of  the  election  was  a  surprise  in  many  re 
spects.  The  total  vote  was  the  largest  ever  cast  in  the 
state  up  to  that  time  and  over  four  thousand  more  than  that 
cast  in  the  Presidential  election  of  the  next  year.  Vallan- 
digham  received  over  three  thousand  more  votes  than  the 
Democrats  had  polled  the  year  before  when  they  were  suc 
cessful.  Yet  Brough  was  elected  by  the  overwhelming  ma 
jority  of  101,000;  of  which  62,000  was  on  the  home  vote 
and  39,000  on  the  soldiers'  vote.  The  vote  of  the  soldiers 
was  very  light,  only  44,000  ballots  being  received  from  the 
160,000  troops  in  the  field.3  The  greatest  Unionist  gains 
were  made  naturally  in  the  old  Republican  sections  of  the 
state.  While  the  Democratic  counties  showed  gains  for  both 
parties,  those  for  the  Unionists  were  much  the  greater,4 

The  effect  of  the  victories  at  Gettysburg  and  Vicksburg; 
the  almost  superhuman  efforts  made  by  the  Unionists  to 

1  John  Sherman,  Recollections,  vol.  i,  p.  327. 
*W.  D.  Bickham  to  Chase,  October  5th.     Chase  Papets,  MS. 
'The  total  vote  cast  in  the  elections  during  the  three  years  1861,  1862 
and  1863  was  as  follows: 

Year.  Unionist.  Democratic.  Total. 

1861  206,997  151,794  358,7Qi 

1862  178,755  184,315  363,070 

1863  288,374  187,492  475,866 

4  Vallandigham  carried  only  18  of  the  88  counties.     In  the  Congres 
sional  elections  of  1862,  the  Democrats  carried  49  counties. 


184          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [320 

secure  every  available  vote;  and  the  fear  that  the  election 
of  Vallandigham  would  precipitate  civil  war  in  the  state — 
all  had  much  to  do  in  determining  the  result.  It  can  hardly 
be  interpreted  as  an  endorsement  of  emancipation  or  arbi 
trary  arrests,  but  rather  as  an  evidence  that  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  state  believed  that  a  vigorous  prosecution 
of  the  war  was  the  only  way  by  which  peace  and  union  could 
be  restored.  By  this  success  of  the  Union  party  in  Ohio, 
combined  with  similar  victories  in  the  other  northern  states,1 
the  Democracy  was  for  the  time  being  completely  demoral 
ized,  and  the  administration  was  thus  relieved  of  a  dan 
gerous  opposition.2 

The  Democratic  press  of  the  state  was  not  in  accord  as 
to  the  cause  of  their  overwhelming  defeat.  The  Crisis 
held  that  Brough's  threat  of  civil  war  had  deterred  many 
from  voting  the  Democratic  ticket  who  otherwise  would 
have  done  so.a  The  Statesman  accused  the  Unionists  of 
gross  frauds  in  importing  illegal  voters  and  in  ballot-box 
stuffing,  which  amounted  to  the  casting  of  about  forty 
thousand  illegal  votes.4  It  also  held  that  the  nomination 
of  Vallandigham1  had  been  a  great  mistake,  that  not  even 
one  in  five  of  those  who  had  voted  for  him  coincided  with  him 
in  his  peculiar  views.  The  Enquirer,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
inclined  to  think  that  his  views  represented  the  views  of  the 

1The  Unionists  carried  all  the  northern  states  except  New  Jersey, 
and  also  Maryland,  Kentucky  and  Delaware.  See  Rhodes,  History  of 
the  U.  S.t  vol.  iv,  p.  416. 

'The  N.  Y.  Tribune  said,  Oct.  3d:  "Not  only  the  people  of  the 
loyal  but  those  of  the  disloyal  States  and  of  England  feel  that  the  fate 
of  the  Union  rests  upon  the  result  of  the  election  in  Ohio." 

Senator  Sherman  wrote  in  his  Recollections;  "I  have  always  re 
garded  Brough's  election  in  Ohio  as  having  an  important  influ 
ence  in  favor  of  the  Union  cause  equal  to  that  of  any  battle  of  the  war." 
Vol.  i,  p.  328. 

•October  I4th.  4 October  2ist. 


321  ]        V ALLAN DIGH AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY        i%$ 

Democrats  of  Ohio  respecting  the  war,  and  that  he  would 
have  been  nominated  even  had  he  not  been  arrested  or  sent 
into  exile.1 

Vallandigham,  though  chagrined  at  the  result,  was  not 
inclined  to  lose  confidence  in  the  ultimate  success  of  his 
principles.  He  was  certain  that  posterity  would  vindicate 
him,  and  "  confident  also  that  after  some  time  be  passed, 
I  shall  have  justice  and  hold  the  power  both.  No  man 
ever  more  than  I,  learned  the  lesson  '  to  labor  and  to  wait/  ' 
While  mourning  over  the  calamities  which  he  saw  to  be  im 
pending — the  bloodshed  and  the  enslavement  of  the  people, 
he  declared :  "  There  never  was  a  nobler  contest  waged  for 
liberty  and  the  right  than  by  the  Democracy  of  Ohio.  All 
cannot  be  lost  as  long  as  such  men,  so  many  in  number  and 
animated  by  such  a  spirit,  survive.  In  one  way  or  another 
they  will  regain  all."  2  To  his  political  brethren  of  the  state 
he  issued  an  address,  October  I4th,  in  which  he  said: 

Your  unconquerable  firmness  and  courage,  even  in  the  midst 
of  armed  military  force,  secured  you  those  first  of  freemen's 
rights — free  speech  and  a  free  ballot.  The  conspiracy  of  the 
fifth  of  May  fell  before  you.  Be  not  discouraged ;  despair  not 
of  the  Republic.  Maintain  your  rights;  stand  firm  to  your 
position ;  never  yield  up  your  principles  or  your  organization.3 

With  party  feeling  running  so  high  throughout  the  year, 
it  is  surprising  that  so  little  violence  occurred  in  the  state. 
While  there  were  many  personal  encounters  and  minor  dis 
turbances,  usually  between  soldiers  on  furlough  or  from  the 
camps  of  the  state  and  Democrats,  there  were  few  instances 
where  the  trouble  assumed  proportions  serious  enough  to 
call  for  the  use  of  troops.  In  March,  resistance  was  of- 

1  October  30th. 

'Letter  to  his  wife.     Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  334. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  334. 


1 86  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [322 

fered  to  the  arrest  of  a  deserter  in  Noble  county,  and  it  was 
necessary  to  send  two  companies  of  soldiers  into  the  local 
ity.  No  blood  was  shed,  and  after  a  few  arrests  were  made, 
the  trouble  ceased.1  Again,  in  Dayton  on  the  day  follow 
ing  Vallandigham's  arrest,  a  mob  collected  and  the  plant 
of  the  Dayton  Journal,  the  Unionist  paper  of  the  city,  was 
burned.  General  Burnside  put  the  county  under  martial 
law  for  a  few  weeks,  and  sent  a  military  force  to  preserve 
order.  During  the  rest  of  the  year  excitement  was  intense 
at  this  place,  and  when,  later  in  the  summer,  the  Journal 
was  revived,2  the  paper  was  printed  under  the  protection 
of  two  loaded  cannon.  Yet  there  was  no  further  outbreak. 
The  only  other  serious  disturbance  occurred  in  Holmes 
county  in  June  where  some  prisoners  arrested  by  the  pro 
vost-martial  for  interfering  with  the  enrollment  were  rescued 
by  a  small  force  of  armed  men.  A  force  of  about  four 
hundred  troops  was  ordered  to  the  scene,  and  a  proclama 
tion  was  issued  by  Governor  Tod  calling  upon  those  who 
were  reported  to  be  in  arms  to  disperse.3  With  the  wound 
ing  of  twro  of  the  insurgents  and  the  arrest  of  a  few  more, 
the  resistance  ceased  and  the  prisoners  were  given  up.4 
None  of  these  affairs  was  directly  connected  with  the  polit 
ical  campaign,  although  they  were  declared  by  some  of  the 
Unionist  speakers  to  be  a  result  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Democracy.  Ohio  thus  passed  through  the  most  exciting 
period  of  her  career  without  the  violence  which  was  a 
feature  of  the  times  in  many  of  the  other  northern  states. 
Another  danger  which  threatened  the  state  during  the 

1  See  Cincinnati  Commercial,  March  2ist.     Also  Crisis,  April  8th. 

*W.  D.  Bickham  of  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  staff  became  its 
editor. 

3 Executive  Documents,  1863,  pt.  i,  p.  297. 

4  Gen.  Cox,  Reminiscences,  vol.  i,  p.  470.  Cf.  also  Official  Records 
of  the  Rebellion,  series  i,  vol.  xxiii,  pt.  i,  pp.  395~7- 


323]         V ALLAN DIGH AM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

year  was  dispelled  through  the  activity  of  the  military  au 
thorities.  The  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  organized  in 
the  western  states  to  oppose  the  war,  were  becoming  active 
in  Ohio.  At  the  time  the  Democratic  state  convention  was 
being  held  in  Columbus,  a  large  meeting  of  the  members 
of  this  society  was  in  session  and  open  threats  were  made 
against  the  administration.  Through  spies  and  detectives 
it  was  discovered  that  there  were  over  80,000  members  in 
Ohio,  armed  and  drilled,  and  that  a  general  uprising  was 
planned  for  the  i6th  of  August,  when  the  rebel  prisoners 
at  Camp  Chase  were  to  be  released  and  a  union  effected 
with  some  rebel  commander  who  was  to  make  a  demonstra 
tion  at  some  point  along  the  southern  border.1  Yet  the  up 
rising  did  not  take  place,  and  when,  in  the  latter  part  of 
July,  General  Morgan  made  his  raid  through  the  southern 
part  of  the  state,  Governor  Tod  was  able  to  call  out  the 
militia  to  oppose  him  in  thirty-two  counties  without  any 
disobedience  to  the  call. 

Vallandigham  passed  the  winter  and  spring  "  waiting 
and  watching  over  the  border,"  ready  to  take  advantage  of 
any  favorable  opportunity  to  return  to  the  state.  Applica 
tion  was  made  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  by  Pugh 
as  his  counsel  for  a  writ  of  certiorari  in  order  that  the 
case  might  be  brought  up  for  review,  but  this  was  re 
fused  on  the  ground  that  the  court  had  no  authority  to  re 
view  the  finding  of  a  military  commission.2  About  the 

1  Report  of  Adjutant- General,  Executive  Documents,  1864,  pt.  ii,  p.  73. 

'The  decision  was  rendered  in  February,  1864.  U.  S.  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  i  Wallace,  p.  385. 

After  the  decision,  Vallandigham  wrote  his  brother:  "The  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  is  as  I  expected  it,  and  perhaps  correct — a  sad 
commentary  upon  the  defects  of  our  system  and  laws.  After  examining 
the  question,  I  should  have  preferred  that  it  should  not  have  been  car 
ried  to  the  Court,  but  Mr.  Pugh  was  confident  and  insistent.  Still  it 
will  matter  not  in  the  long  run.  Other  remedies  for  this  and  other 
evils  will  alone  avail  now."  MS.  Letter. 


188          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [324 

same  time,  Pendleton  offered  a  resolution  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  that  the  arrest  and  banishment  "  were  acts 
of  mere  military  power  in  palpable  violation  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,"  but  this  was  re 
jected  by  a  strict  party  vote.1 

In  the  meantime  the  exile's  friends  were  contributing  to 
his  support.  In  the  issue  of  the  Crisis  of  December  i6th, 
1863,  a  letter  was  published  suggesting  that  the  ladies  of 
Ohio  contribute  ten  cents  each  as  a  donation  for  him.  The 
idea  was  taken  up  by  the  press  and  a  committee  was  ap 
pointed  to  receive  the  funds.  As  a  result  there  was  col 
lected  and  forwarded  to  Vallandigham  about  twenty- 
thousand  dollars,  five  thousand  of  which  came  from  friends 
in  New  York.  Some  of  the  money  was  raised  through 
fairs  and  socials  held  by  the  Democratic  ladies  for  the  pur 
pose,  but  most  came  through  individual  contributions.2  The 
raising  of  this  "  Dime  Fund  "  attracted  considerable  at 
tention,  and  some  notice  was  taken  of  it  in  the  legislature. 
On  January  nth,  a  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Senate 
instructing  its  judiciary  committee  to  inquire  and  report  by 
bill  or  otherwise,  what  legislation  was  necessary  to  prevent 
the  payment  of  money  to  disloyal  citizens.3  Some  time 
later  notice  was  given  by  one  of  the  senators  of  his  intention 
to  introduce  a  bill  to  prevent  disloyal  practices,  and  to  pre 
vent  citizens  of  the  state  from  giving  pecuniary  aid  to  per 
sons  banished  from  the  state  for  disloyalty.  No  action  was 

1  Congressional  Globe,  38th  cong.,  ist  sess.,  p.  879. 

'In  February,  Vallandigham  wrote  to  his  brother:  "That  'Fund* 
promises  to  be  munificent  if  not  magnificent,  and  already  amounts  to 
$15,000,  and  those  concerned  aim  at  much  more.  It  will  all  be  pre 
sented  at  once  by  a  committee.  ...  I  watch  and  wait  and  am  always 
ready,  but  of  course  my  plans  for  the  future  are  contingent  upon  events 
which  I  cannot  control."  MS.  Letter. 

H  Senate  Journal ,  1864,  p.  20. 


325]        V  ALL  AN  DIGRAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY        jgg 

taken  on  the  matter,  however,  and  the  contributions  con 
tinued  to  be  sent  without  interruption. 

The  injection  of  politics  into  religious  sermons  led  some 
of  the  Peace  Democrats,  late  in  the  year,  to  take  up  a  new 
form  of  activity.  Vallandigham  had  long  denounced  polit 
ical  preaching,  and  it  had  been  referred  to  in  many  of  the 
resolutions  of  the  local  conventions.1  At  a  meeting  of 
the  Methodist  Church  conference,  held  in  Lancaster  in  No 
vember,  resolutions  were  adopted  pledging  support  to  the 
administration  and  endorsing  the  war  policy.  Olds  took 
exception  to  this  action,  and  suggested  through  the  Crisis  * 
that  a  state  convention  be  held,  "  for  the  purpose  of  devising 
some  plan  for  a  new  church  organization  in  which  Demo 
crats  may  enjoy  the  privilege  of  having  preached  the  pure 
gospel,  .  .  .  unmixed  with  abolition  and  fanaticism,  and 
without  being  insulted  and  denounced  from  the  pulpit  as  dis 
loyal."  At  a  meeting  held  at  Lancaster  later,  a  formal  call 
was  issued  for  the  convention.  It  met  at  Columbus  on 
February  3d,  and  according  to  the  reports  of  the  Demo 
cratic  press,  was  attended  by  delegates  from  seventeen  coun 
ties.  A  society  was  organized  under  the  name,  "  Christian 
Union/'  and  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
were  adopted  as  the  "  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
practice."  As  a  result,  congregations  were  established  in 
various  parts  of  the  state,  and  services  conducted  accord 
ing  to  the  new  doctrine  of  peace.  After  the  close  of  the 
war,  however,  they  were  gradually  abandoned,  and  the 
members  were  absorbed  into  the  old  denominations. 

1  One  of  the  most  radical  of  these  was  adopted  at  a  local  convention 
in  Butler  county  on  March  14,  1863.  It  held,  "that  the  clergy  of  the 
present  day  are  the  devil's  select  and  inspired  representatives,  preaching 
hate,  envy,  malice,  vengeance,  blood  and  murder,  instead  of  love, 
charity  and  the  doctrines  of  Christ."  Dayton  Empire,  March  16,  1863. 

J  December  i6th. 


OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [326 
THE  DEMOCRACY  IN  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1864 

The  beginning  of  the  year  1864  found  the  Democrats,  as 
a  result  of  their  defeat,  in  a  very  much  disorganized  condi 
tion.  There  was,  first,  the  little  band  of  "  War  Demo 
crats  "  who  had  declared  against  Vallandigham  in  the  cam 
paign,  and  who  were  preparing  to  meet  on  January  8th, 
to  select  delegates  to  a  national  convention,  and  make  nomin 
ations  for  the  state  offices.  Secondly,  there  was  the  ex 
treme  state-rights  wing  led  by  William  M.  Cory  and  Alex 
ander  Long  *  of  Cincinnati,  which  had  attempted  to  impose 
its  doctrines  of  peace  and  separation  on  the  state  convention 
in  the  preceding  June.  A  third  element  consisted  of  Val- 
landigham's  supporters,  who  stood  on  a  platform  of  peace 
with  union.  Finally,  there  were  those  led  by  Ranney,  Payne 
and  Jewett,  who  favored  a  policy  of  suppressing  the  rebel 
lion  by  force,  but  opposed  the  use  of  the  method  employed 
by  the  administration.  The  Crisis  and  Enquirer  were  strong 
for  peace,  the  Statesman  was  rather  neutral  and  labored  to 
bring  the  various  elements  together,  while  the  Plain  Dealer 
advocated  war  measures  and  a  war  candidate  for  the 
Presidency. 

On  January  8th,  two  of  these  factions  met  at  Columbus, 
The  "  War  Democrats "  held  their  convention,  and  re 
affirmed  their  platform  adopted  in  the  previous  September. 
Delegates  were  selected  to  attend  a  national  convention 
which  it  was  proposed  to  hold  at  Cincinnati  in  May,  but  it 
was  deemed  inexpedient  to  nominate  a  state  ticket  at  that 
early  date.  At  the  same  time,  the  Vallandigham  men  as 
sembled  at  a  Jackson  Day  banquet,  and  listened  to  addresses 
from  Medary,  Van  Trump,  Olds  and  Converse.  While  the 
tone  of  this  meeting  was  much  less  radical  than  the  one  held 
a  year  before,  yet  there  was  no  disposition  shown  to  aban 
don  the  doctrines  of  peace. 

1  Democratic  Congressman  from  the  2d  District. 


327]         I'ALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY        I9i 

During  the  early  part  of  the  year,  many  Democratic 
newspaper  offices  were  mobbed  by  furloughed  soldiers,  the 
Mahoning  Sentinel,  Fremont  Messenger,  Ohio  Eagle  and 
Dayton  Empire  being  the  principal  sufferers.  A  threat 
made  against  the  Statesman  was  met  with  the  answer  that 
the  property  of  the  Abolitionists  would  be  held  responsible 
for  any  damage  done.1  During  the  attack  on  the  Dayton 
Empire  office,  an  attempt  of  some  of  the  Democrats  to  pro 
tect  the  property  led  to  a  conflict  in  which  several  persons 
were  wounded.  In  commenting  on  this,  the  Crisis  rejoiced 
to  know  "  that  the  Democrats  have  at  last  learned  that  their 
only  protection  is  in  their  own  keeping."  Vallandigham 
wrote  from  his  retreat  across  the  border  expressing  his  re 
gret  that  the  editors  were  not  prepared  to  "  inflict  on  the 
spot,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  assault,  the  complete  punish 
ment  which  the  assailants  deserved,"  and  advised  in  the 
future,  "  instant,  summary  and  ample  reprisals  upon  the 
persons  and  property  of  the  men  at  home,  who  by  lan 
guage  and  conduct  are  always  exciting  these  outrages."  z 
The  Democrats  were  not,  however,  in  a  position  to  act  in 
accordance  with  such  advice. 

As  many  of  these  riots  had  taken  place  before  the  ad 
journment  of  the  legislature,  they  called  forth  an  expres 
sion  from  that  body  in  the  form  of  resolutions  which,  while 
deploring  the  fact  that  certain  public  journals  were  publish 
ing  treasonable  articles  thus  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
enemies  of  the  country,  condemned  the  acts  of  mob  violence, 
and  urged  the  people  of  the  state  to  seek  redress  in  'the 
future  through  the  legally  constituted  authorities.3  This 
advice  was  followed  by  taking  into  custody  the  editors  of 

1  Editorial,  February  18,  1864. 

5  Letter  to  Editors.     See  Crisis,  March  i6th. 

1  March  3ist.     Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixi,  p.  200. 


192          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [328 

some  of  the  most  objectionable  newspapers.  Medary  was 
arrested  in  May  on  a  warrant  issued  by  the  United  States 
District  Court  at  Cincinnati,  under  the  act  of  Congress  of 
July  17,  1862,  which  provided  a  punishment  for  persons 
inciting  rebellion  or  insurrection  against  the  United  States 
or  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  any  existing  rebellion  or  in 
surrection.1  He  was  taken  to  Cincinnati,  but  was  released 
after  being  held  for  a  few  days. 

The  Democrats  fixed  on  March  23d  as  the  date  for  hold 
ing  their  state  convention  to  nominate  a  state  ticket  and 
select  delegates  to  the  national  convention  at  Chicago.  As 
the  time  approached,  the  division  between  the  peace  and  war 
factions  became  more  sharply  drawn.  Butler,  Montgo 
mery,  Franklin,  Fairfield  and  Hardin  counties  pronounced 
squarely  for  peace,  and  endorsed  Vallandigham  for  the 
Presidency,  while  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state  most 
of  the  counties  declared  for  McClellan,  with  Fremont  as 
second  choice. 

In  the  organization  of  the  convention,  the  war  faction 
took  advantage  of  their  opponents.  Olds  was  the  candidate 
slated  to  preside  over  the  session,  but  before  the  chairman 
of  the  central  committee  arrived  at  the  meeting  place,  an 
other  member  of  the  committee  called  the  delegates  to  or 
der,  and  a  war  man  was  chosen  president.  From  that  time 
on  the  convention  was  in  the  hands  of  the  war  faction. 
The  platform  was  brief  and  artfully  drawn  so  that  it  might 
be  satisfactory  to  all  the  elements  of  the  party.  It  declared 
the  devotion  of  the  Democratic  party  to  the  Constitution 
"  as  transmitted  to  us  by  the  framers  of  that  instrument, 
and  expounded  by  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Jackson,  and  as 

1  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  196. 

Baker,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Statesman;  John  McElwee,  editor  of 
the  Hamilton  True  Telegraph;  Daniel  Flanigan,  editor  of  the  Warren 
County  Democrat,  were  others  arrested  and  imprisoned  during  the  year. 


329]        VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

construed  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798 
and  1799,"  and  pledged  "life,  fortune  and  sacred  honor" 
for  its  maintenance.  Any  honorable  effort  toward  a  res 
toration  of  the  "  normal  condition  "  of  the  Union  would 
be  hailed  with  delight.  The  party  was  held  to  be 

opposed  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war  for  the  subjugation  of 
States  or  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  them  of  their  sover 
eignty  or  impairing  their  Constitutional  rights ;  and  being  satis 
fied  that  its  continued  prosecution  for  such  objects  will  in  the 
end  prove  the  utter  destruction  of  civil  liberty,  we  therefore 
demand  the  immediate  inauguration  of  peaceable  means  to 
attain  an  honorable  settlement  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union 
under  the  Constitution. 

The  mob  spirit  abroad  in  the  land  was  deemed  the  natural 
result  of  the  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  by  the 
party  in  power. 

Compared  with  the  expressions  of  the  party  a  year  before, 
these  sentiments  were  extremely  mild.  Vallandigham  was 
not  endorsed,  nor  was  any  request  made  for  his  return; 
his  name  was  not  even  mentioned  in  the  resolutions.  Cory 
issued  a  broadside  address  advocating  peaceable  separation 
and  a  conclusion  of  the  war  on  any  terms,  but  he  did  not 
even  get  a  place  on  the  committee  on  resolutions. 

No  trouble  was  experienced  in  nominating  a  state  ticket, 
but  the  factions  crossed  swords  on  the  selection  of  dele 
gates  at  large.  The  nominees  included  Pendleton,  Allen, 
Thurman,  Medary,  Ranney  and  Vallandigham.  On  the 
first  ballot,  the  first  three  of  these  were  chosen.  All  the 
names  were  then  withdrawn  except  those  of  Ranney  and 
Vallandigham,  and  on  the  next  ballot  Ranney  received  a 
majority  of  four  votes.  The  announcement  of  the  result 
caused  great  confusion.  A  demand  for  the  reading  of  the 
vote  by  counties  was  made  by  the  peace  men,  but  the  chair- 


194          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [330 

man  ruled  this  out  of  order.  An  appeal  was  made,  and  the 
supporters  of  Vallandigham  threatened  to  leave  if  they  could 
not  be  heard.  The  demand  was  finally  acceded  to,  but  the 
result  remained  unchanged,  and  the  choice  was  made  un 
animous.  The  division  on  the  vote  was  for  the  most  part 
geographical,  the  northern  counties  supporting  Ranney  and 
the  southern  ones  Vallandigham. 

The  convention  was  thus  decidedly  in  the  hands  of  the 
war  element.  The  Crisis  and  Enquirer  were  much  disap 
pointed  with  its  work,  the  former  holding  that  to  their 
candidate  as  an  individual,  his  defeat  was  not  worth  con 
sideration,  "  but  the  public  abandonment  of  personal  liberty 
and  crouching  even  by  implication  to  the  most  odious  of 
all  tyrants  is  a  misfortune  no  time  can  cure,  nor  can  any 
apology  excuse  the  mistake."  1  The  Etnquirer  found  much 
objection  to  the  platform,  considering  that  it  was  not  very 
distinctly  in  favor  of  peace  and  not  very  distinctly  opposed 
to  it;  that  it  was  devised  rather  for  party  success  than  as 
the  expression  of  the  sentiment  of  the  masses  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  "  For  a  party  which  six  months  ago  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  polled  187,000  votes  for  a  peace  candidate, 
the  largest  vote  of  its  history,  it  is  several  political  centuries 
behind  the  times."  2  The  Unionist  papers  found  much  en 
joyment  in  commenting  on  the  cunning  with  which  the  plat 
form  was  constructed,  dubbing  it  "  a  beautiful  welding  of 
peace  and  war." 

Stirred  by  the  defeat,  Vallandigham  prepared  to  return 
to  the  state  to  take  up  the  fight  in  person.  In  February, 
at  a  meeting  of  the  supreme  council  of  the  reorganized 
Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  or  "  Order  of  Sons  of  Lib 
erty  "  as  the  society  was  then  called,  he  had  been  elected 
supreme  commander.3  Great  activity  had  been  displayed 

1  Editorial,  April  6th.  '  Editorial,  March  26th. 

8  F.  G.  Stidger,  Treason  History  of  t/ie  Order  of  Sons  of  Liberty,  p.  49. 


33 1  ]        VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

'  throughout  the  spring  in  organizing  lodges  in  the  counties 
of  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Ohio,  so  that  by  June  the  member 
ship  reached  200,000. x  Feeling  safe  with  this  number  of 
supporters,  under  a  heavy  disguise  and  accompanied  by  a 
few  of  his  closest  friends,  the  exile  entered  the  state,  and 
appeared  on  June  I5th  before  the  convention  of  the  third 
district  in  session  at  Hamilton,  to  choose  delegates  to 
Chicago,  just  as  the  delegation  from  his  county  was  de 
liberating  as  to  whether  or  not  it  would  be  wise  to  put  his 
name  in  nomination.2  To  those  assembled  at  the  conven 
tion  he  said : 

I  am  now  here  ready  to  answer  before  any  civil  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  to  a  jury  of  my  countrymen,  and  in  the 
meantime  to  give  bail  in  any  sum  which  any  judge  or  court, 
State  or  Federal,  may  affix ;  and  you,  the  hundred  and  eighty- 
six  thousand  Democrats  of  Ohio,  I  offer  as  my  sureties.  ...  I 
return  of  my  own  act  and  pleasure,  because  it  is  my  Constitu 
tional  and  legal  right  to  return.  .  .  .  Endorsed  by  nearly  two 
hundred  thousand  freemen  of  the  Democratic  party  of  my 
native  State  at  the  late  election,  and  still  with  the  sympathy 
and  support  of  millions  more,  I  do  not  mean  any  longer  to  be 
the  only  man  of  that  party  who  is  the  victim  of  arbitrary 
power.3 

1  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  374. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  351  et  seq. 

8  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  356. 

The  Enquirer  and  Crisis  spoke  very  boldly  regarding  the  protecting 
of  Vallandigham  should  any  attempt  be  made  to  molest  him.  While  he 
was  addressing  the  convention,  a  dispatch  announcing  his  return  was 
sent  to  the  Illinois  state  convention,  then  in  session.  A  reply  was  re 
ceived  stating  that  "  Illinois  will  stand  by  Ohio  in  the  maintenance  of 
personal  liberty."  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  June  1 7th.  The  Union  papers 
of  the  state  were  inclined  to  make  light  of  his  return,  holding  that  it 
would  be  a  serious  embarrassment  to  the  Democrats  at  Chicago.  Lin 
coln,  taking  this  view  of  the  matter,  allowed  it  to  pass  unnoticed.  See 
Nicolay  and  Hay,  Abraham  Lincoln,  vol.  vii,  p.  359. 


196          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [332 

Under  the  enthusiasm  aroused  by  his  presence,  he  was 
selected  by  acclamation  as  one  of  the  delegates.  In  other 
districts,  the  peace  faction  had  secured  the  election  of  its 
most  important  leaders,  and  the  Ohio  delegation  proceeded 
to  Chicago  in  August,  divided  on  the  question  of  a  candi 
date.  Unable  to  prevent  the  nomination  of  McClellan, 
Vallandigham  carried  through,  as  a  part  of  the  platform, 
the  well-known  resolution 

That  after  four  years  of  failure  to  restore  the  Union  by  the 
experiment  of  war  .  .  .  justice,  humanity,  liberty  and  the  pub 
lic  welfare  demand  that  immediate  efforts  be  made  for  a  ces 
sation  of  hostilities,  with  a  view  to  an  ultimate  convention  of 
the  States,  or  other  peaceable  means,  to  the  end  that  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment  peace  may  be  restored  on  the  basis 
of  the  Federal  Union  of  the  States.1 

In  the  campaign  of  this  year  the  Peace  Democrats,  in 
Ohio  as  in  the  other  northern  states,  made  what  was  to  be 
their  last  stand  against  the  war  policy.  Most  of  the  Demo 
cratic  congressmen  elected  in  1862  were  renominated,  and 
the  campaign  was  conducted  on  much  the  same  issues  as 
that  of  the  previous  year.  Twice  during  the  year,  in  May 
and  September,  a  draft  was  ordered  in  the  state;  and  in 
April,  through  the  offer  of  the  governors  of  some  of  the 
northern  states  to  send  their  militia  into'  service  for  one 
hundred  days  to  do  garrison  duty,  36,000  of  the  national 
guard  of  Ohio  were  called  into  active  duty.  Both  of  these 
things  were  made  into  political  capital  during  the  campaign, 
especially  the  latter,  and  Governor  Brough  was  denounced 
even  by  some  of  his  own  party  for  sending  so  many  of  the 
citizens  out  of  the  state  at  a  time  when  they  were  busy  with 
their  summer's  work. 

While  apologizing  for  the  Presidential  nomination  of  a 
1  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  304. 


333]        VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

military  man,  the  peace  men,  during  the  early  part  of  the 
campaign,  urged  that  he  be  supported  because  of  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  platform;  but  when  McClellan  sent  his  letter 
repudiating  the  peace  resolution,  Vallandigham  cancelled 
his  speaking  engagements  and  withdrew  from  the  field  for 
a  time,  while  his  associates  made  sad  efforts  to  reconcile 
it  with  the  platform.  Later  in  the  campaign  Vallandigham 
reappeared,  and  while  opposing  the  candidate's  views  as  be 
ing  the  very  ones  which  had  been  voted  down  in  the  com 
mittee  on  resolutions  at  Chicago,  yet,  considering  them  as 
his  own  private  views  and  the  platform  as  the  lazv,  he  de 
clared  he  would  still  support  him.1  The  Crisis,  however, 
refused  to  put  his  name  at  its  mast  head.2 

The  enthusiasm  shown  in  the  campaign  of  1863  was  lack 
ing  in  the  contest  of  this  year.  The  military  operations  of 
the  fall  left  little  doubt  of  the  approaching  end  of  the  war, 
while  the  issues  of  emancipation  and  arbitrary  arrests  no 
longer  excited  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  the  state.  The 
Union  party  carried  the  state  in  the  October  election  by  a 
majority  of  54,000,  of  which  28,000  were  contributed  by 
the  soldiers.  The  vote  was  lighter  by  56,000  than  that  of 
the  preceding  year,  over  50,000  of  which  were  at  the  ex 
pense  of  the  Unionists. 

On  October  i8th,  under  the  direction  of  Long  and  Cory, 
a  mass  convention  of  the  state-rights  Democracy  of  Illi 
nois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Ohio  was  held  at  Cincinnati.  In 
a  speech  in  Congress  early  in  the  year,3  Long  had  expressed 
his  belief  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  restoring  the 
Union  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  acknowledge  the  inde 
pendence  of  the  South;  these  ideas  he  supported  in  terms 

1  Speech  at  Sydney,  Cincinnati  Commercial,  September  26th. 

'See  issue  of  September  28th. 

*  Cong.  Globe,  38th  cong.,  1st  sess.,  p.  1499. 


198          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [334 

so  strong  as  to  lead  to  his  censure  by  the  House.1  At 
Chicago  he  had  labored  to  have  a  plank  included  in  the  plat 
form  reaffirming  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions,  but 
had  failed.  It  was  his  object  in  this  convention  to  supply 
the  omissions  of  the  Chicago  platform  in  distinctly  setting 
forth  the  time-honored  doctrines  of  the  party,  and  with  this 
in  view,  resolutions  were  adopted  declaring  for  peace  and 
state  rights  and  the  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798.  There 
was  some  talk  of  making  an  independent  nomination,  since 
McClellan  had  come  out  so  openly  for  war,  but  owing  to  the 
lateness  of  the  date  this  was  given  up. 

In  the  November  election,  Lincoln  received  a  majority  of 
60,000  in  a  total  vote  a  little  less  than  that  of  1863.  About 
25,000  votes  were  thus  changed  from  the  Unionists  to  the 
Democrats.  These  gains  were  pretty  uniform  throughout 
the  state,  and  represented  the  strong  war  element  of  the 
Democracy  which  refused  to  vote  for  Vallandigham. 

With  the  clo-se  of  the  war  the  great  argument  of  the 
Peace  Democracy  was  gone — the  Union  had  been  restored 
by  war.  Throughout  the  contest  they  had  waged  a  persis 
tent  fight,  and  constituted  a  dangerous  opposition.  Dur 
ing  the  period  of  reconstruction,  while  the  Union  party 
was  laboring  to  secure  the  results  of  the  war,  they  were 
able  to  contend  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union  as  it  was, 
and  to  raise  an  issue  on  the  matter  of  extending  the  right 
of  suffrage  to  the  negro. 

Much  reproach  has  been  cast  on  this  opposition  party 
of  the  war,  and  the  terms  "  Butternut "  and  "  Copperhead  " 
still  retain  much  of  their  early  opprobrium.  But  something 
may  be  said  in  its  justification.  The  Democracy  of  the 
West  were  not  advocates  of  unqualified  peace,  but  of  peace 
with  the  old  Union  restored.  They  were  not  opposed  to  the 

•See  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  387. 


335]        VALLANDIGHAM  AND  PEACE  DEMOCRACY 

government,  but  their  quarrel  was  with  the  party  which 
administered  it.  They  held  the  Abolitionists  responsible 
for  provoking  the  war,  and  accused  the  administration  of 
violating  all  constitutional  safeguards  in  carrying  it  on. 
But  forcible  resistance  was  never  advocated  by  the  party 
to  any  measure,  not  even  to  the  draft;  and  people  were 
urged  to  remedy  the  evils  through  the  ballot  box. 

In  their  platform  of  opposition,  the  Democrats  could  bring 
many  counts  against  the  administration.  They  were  right, 
as  the  sequel  proved,  in  their  stand  against  arbitrary  ar 
rests,  and  their  argument  that  the  Constitution  should  be 
the  same  in  war  as  in  peace  was  a  potent  one.  However, 
in  contending  that  peace  could  be  secured  with  the  old 
Union  intact,  they  failed  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  any 
compromise  with  the  South  on  the  basis  of  the  old  Con 
stitution  was  impossible  at  any  time  during  the  war. 
Again,  their  arguments  on  the  constitutional  question  were 
better  fitted  to  a  period  when  calm  reasoning  rather  than 
inflamed  passion  was  dominant.  To  the  Unionists,  the  Con 
stitution  was  not  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  letter, 
but  by  its  spirit,  and  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  administration 
were  justified  on  this  ground. 

An  opposition  party  during  a  war  period  may  perform  a 
useful  service  in  tempering  the  acts  of  the  majority,  and  the 
Democrats,  in  many  instances,  performed  this  service  during 
the  Rebellion.  The  fact  that  there  had  been  an  opposition 
party  during  the  war  of  1812  and  the  Mexican  war,  was 
used  by  the  party  leaders  to  justify  their  course.  But  the 
two  situations  were  different.  The  earlier  war  was  waged 
against  a  foreign  foe  and  the  questions  at  issue  were  not 
vital,  while  in  the  rebellion  the  very  life  of  the  nation  was 
in  peril.  In  such  a  time,  those  who  held  that  the  Union 
could  be  preserved  only  by  force,  could  look  upon  any  who 
were  opposed  to  them  in  no  other  light  than  as  traitors. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  QUESTION  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO 

POLITICS  OF  THE  YEAR  1865 

THE  close  of  the  war  left  both  parties  in  the  state  ap 
parently  without  an  issue.  Notwithstanding  the  continued 
reiteration  of  the  Peace  Democracy  that  the  South  could 
not  be  conquered,  and  that  the  Union  could  be  restored  only 
by  peaceable  means,  the  South  had  been  conquered  and  the 
Union  restored  by  force;  though  the  destruction  of  slavery 
precluded  the  possibility  of  a  return  to  the  "  Union  as  it 
was."  On  the  other  hand,  the  Union  party  had  been  formed 
on  the  sole  platform  of  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war, 
and  since  the  contest  was  ended,  there  seemed  to  be  no 
further  reason  for  existence.  During  the  weeks  immediately 
following  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  there  was  talk  of  dis 
banding  both  parties.  However,  the  desire  of  the  one  to 
secure  the  results  of  the  war  furnished  a  reason  for  con 
tinuance,  while  the  other,  with  its  training  of  the  past  four 
years,  passed  easily  from  the  cry  of  executive  usurpation, 
to  that  of  congressional  despotism. 

Of  the  problems  which  grew  out  of  the  war,  the  one 
of  most  immediate  concern  to  Ohio  was  the  question  of  con 
ferring  political  rights  on  the  negro.  The  status  of  the 
colored  race  in  the  state  was  not  changed  politically  during 
the  war  period.  The  "  Visible  Admixture  law,"  passed  in 
1857,  had  been  declared  unconstitutional  in  1860; 1  and 
while  the  Unionists  recognized  the  validity  of  this  decision, 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  23. 
200  [336 


337]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  2OI 

the  Democrats  opposed  it.  As  a  result,  in  the  sections  of 
the  state  strongly  Unionist,  especially  on  the  Reserve  and 
in  Greene  county,  mulattoes  and,  so  it  was  asserted  by  the 
Democrats,  even  full-blooded  negroes  were  permitted  to 
vote  at  the  elections.  In  some  instances  affidavits  were 
made  showing  that  this  was  carried  on  to  a  considerable 
extent.1 

The  question  of  eliminating  the  word  "  white "  from 
the  state  Constitution  was  brought  before  the  legislature 
during  the  sessions  of  1860  and  1861,  by  numerous  peti 
tions  on  the  subject.  In  the  House  these  were  referred  to 
the  judiciary  committee,  which  reported  adversely,2  while, 
in  the  Senate,  no  action  was  taken.  The  Democrats  tried 
to  force  the  issue  by  offering  resolutions  proposing  that  an 
amendment  defining  the  word  "  white "  be  submitted  to 
the  people  of  the  state.  Through  a  combination  of  the 
Democrats  and  some  of  the  Republicans  of  the  southern 
part  of  the  state,  one  resolution  came  within  three  votes  of 
receiving  the  necessary  three-fifths  majority.3 

During  the  war,  as  has  been  noted,  the  Union  party 
avoided  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  any  phase  of  the 
negro  question.  While  the  amendment  to  abolish  slavery 
was  under  discussion  in  Congress,  attempts  were  made  in 
the  legislature  to  secure  an  endorsement  of  it,  but  none  of 
the  resolutions  offered  was  allowed  to  come  to  a  vote.4 

1  This  was  especially  true  in  Greene  county.  After  every  election  the 
Democrats  charged  frauds  in  this  county.  In  a  contested  election  case 
taken  to  the  legislature  from  Hancock  county,  1864,  the  votes  of  mulat 
toes  were  held  to  be  legal.  Cf.  House  Journal,  1864,  App.,  p.  3.  In 
counties  where  there  were  only  a  few  negroes,  they  were  usually  allowed 
to  vote  and  their  ballots  marked  so  that  in  case  of  a  close  result  they 
might  be  thrown  out  if  necessary. 

1  House  Journal,  1860,  p.  183.  *  Ibid.,  1861,  p.  374. 

*Cf.  House  Journal,  1864,  p.  293;  1865,  p.  9.  Senate  Journal,  1865, 
P.  52- 


202  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [338 

When  Congress  finally  passed  the  joint  resolution  propos 
ing  the  amendment,  January  31,  1865,  Governor  Brough 
transmitted  a  copy  to  the  legislature  with  the  following  com 
ment  :  "  The  people  of  Ohio  will  cordially  and  promptly  re 
spond  to  this  important  change  in  the  organic  law,  and  you 
as  their  representatives  will,  I  doubt  not,  with  equal  cor 
diality  and  promptness,  give  legal  power  and  expression 
to  their  voice  in  this  particular."  *  The  Senate  took  up  the 
matter  at  once,  and  passed  a  joint  resolution  of  ratification 
after  a  substitute2  had  been  offered  from  the  Democratic 
side  and  defeated.  After  some  attempts  had  been  made  to 
delay  action,  the  resolution  was  adopted  in  the  House  by 
a  strict  party  vote. 

During  this  session  of  1865,  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the 
"Visible  Admixture  law,"  which  had  passed  the  House  dur 
ing  the  preceding  session,  became  a  law.8  In  the  passage  of 
an  act  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  the  legislature  also  wiped 
out  the  last  of  the  "  Black  Laws,"  by  repealing  the  statute 
which  provided  that  no  colored  person  should  be  held  to 
have  gained  a  residence  in  the  state  by  virtue  of  having 
dwelt  there  for  two  years,  and  by  making  every  person  a 
legal  resident  of  the  township  in  which  he  had  resided  for  a 
year  and  entitled  to  such  relief  as  he  might  require.4  Thus 
at  the  close  of  the  war,  the  Unionists  began  to  make  some 
progress  toward  a  more  liberal  policy  in  regard  to  the  ne 
groes. 

1  Senate  Journal ',  1865,  p.  101. 

2 This  substitute  provided  that,  "the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the 
rights  of  each  State  to  order  and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions 
according  to  its  judgment,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which 
the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends."  It  had 
been  offered  in  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives,  January 
i8th,  by  Harding  of  Kentucky.  McPherson,  History  of  the  Rebellion, 
p.  259. 

8  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Hi,  p.  42.  *Ibid.t  p.  18. 


339]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  203 

In  Ohio,  as  in  the  other  northern  states,  the  politics  of 
1865  turned  largely  on  the  question  of  supporting  President 
Johnson  in  his  policy  of  reconstruction.  In  his  proclama 
tions  issued  on  May  2Qth  granting  amnesty,  with  certain 
exceptions,  to  those  who  had  participated  in  the  rebellion, 
and  prescribing  a  method  of  reconstruction  for  North  Caro 
lina,1  he  announced,  in  effect,  that  he  would  continue  the 
plan  which  Lincoln  had  begun.  This  was  to  put  the  control 
of  political  affairs  back  into  the  hands  of  those  who  had 
administered  them  before  the  war,  provided  an  oath  of 
allegiance  prescribed  in  the  proclamation  was  taken. 

The  Democratic  press  of  the  state,  especially  the  States 
man,  began  to  show,  soon  after  Johnson's  succession,  that 
he  was  in  accord  with  Democratic  principles,  and  even  to 
suggest  that  the  two  parties  in  the  state  unite  in  his  sup 
port.  Vallandigham  came  forward  with  a  carefully  pre 
pared  letter  to  point  the  way  for  the  Democracy  to  follow. 
In  the  first  place,  he  considered  that  the  party  must  be  con 
tinued  with  its  fundamental  principles  unchanged,  especi 
ally  its  true  state-rights  doctrine  which  was  laid  down  in  the 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  as  interpreted  by  their 
authors,  the  one  by  Madison  in  his  report  of  1799  and  the 
other  by  Jefferson  in  his  inaugural.  But  Vallandigham 
held  it  would  be  folly  not  to  comprehend  and  recognize  the 
radical  change,  in  regard  to  men  and  policies,  wrought  by 
the  war.  It  must  be  recognized  that  a  new  epoch  had  been 
reached.  As  to  the  past,  he  was  willing  to  be  judged  by  his 
record.  If  he  had  erred,  it  was  in  the  glorious  company 
of  the  patriot  founders  of  the  system  of  government;  and 
while  accepting  the  new  order  of  things,  he  would  still  keep 
as  near  as  possible  to  their  teachings  and  practices.  The 
new  President  differed  from  the  Democracy  as  to  the  fact 

1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  President,  vol.  vi,  p.  312. 


204  OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [-540 

and  the  manner  of  prosecuting  the  war,  but  if  his  policy  on 
reconstruction  should  appear  best,  to  secure  a  speedy  and 
lasting  pacification  upon  the  basis  of  the  Federal  Union  of 
the  states,  it  would  be  best  for  the  Democracy  to  lend  him  a 
hand.  As  to  slavery,  Vallandigham  was  willing  to  accept 
the  issue  and  recognize  that  the  institution  was  dead.  The 
freedman,  when  admitted  to  reside  in  a  state,  ought,  he  de 
clared,  to  be  the  equal  of  any  other  man  in  all  legal  rights 
and  remedies,  but  political  rights  and  social  usages  were 
questions  which  each  state  and  community  must  be  per 
mitted  to  decide  for  itself.1 

The  Union  party  leaders  began  early  in  the  year  to 
arrange  their  program  for  the  forthcoming  campaign.  On 
April  5th,  at  a  conference  of  the  members  of  the  state  central 
committee  and  the  Union  members  of  the  legislature  and  of 
Congress,  June  2ist  was  fixed  upon  as  the  date  for  the 
state  convention.  A  request  from  the  Ohio  soldiers  in  the 
field,  for  representation  in  the  convention,  was  considered, 
and  it  was  decided  to  allow  each  regiment,  separately  organ 
ized  battalion  and  independent  battery  to>  send  a  delegate. 
The  call  was  issued  on  April  loth,  and  with  it  an  address 
was  published  warning  the  people  that  the  dangers  were  not 
yet  passed  and  the  objects  for  which  the  Union  party  had 
been  formed  were  not  yet  attained.  The  great  questions 
growing  out  of  the  war  were  urgently  pressing  upon  the 
attention  of  the  country.  Men  were  needed  in  power  both 
in  state  and  nation,  who  would  stand  firmly  by  the  guiding 
principles  of  the  past  four  years. 

Let  it  be  fully  understood  that  no  man  who  has,  in  an  official 
capacity  whether  civil  or  military,  been  connected  with  this  un 
holy  rebellion  and  thus  imbrued  his  hands  in  the  blood  of  his 
countrymen,  can  ever,  with  our  consent,  stand  in  the  councils 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  June  3,  1865. 


NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO 


205 


of  the  nation,  or  assist  in  making  laws  for  loyal  men.  ...  Let 
us  all  stand  upon  the  broad  platform  of  human  freedom  and 
the  regeneration  and  elevation  of  every  man  born  in  the  image 
of  God. 

This  was  the  year  for  the  election  of  a  governor,  and 
much  difference  of  opinion  developed  on  the  question  of  a 
candidate.  Brough  had  made  himself  unpopular  with  the 
Ohio  officers  in  the  army  because  of  his  strict  rule  of  mak 
ing  promotions  according  to  seniority  rather  than  merit, 
while  in  the  state  there  was  considerable  feeling  against 
him  because  of  his  calling  out  the  militia  for  the  Hundred 
Days'  service  in  the  middle  of  the  summer,  when  most  people 
were  busy  with  their  farm  work.  There  was  also  much 
personal  opposition  to  him  on  account  of  a  certain  gruff- 
ness  of  manner.  The  old  Republican  element  held  that, 
since  both  Tod  and  Brough  had  been  selected  from  the 
Democrats,  it  was  proper  that  a  candidate  of  Republican 
faith  should  be  nominated,  while  the  army  expressed  a  de 
cided  preference  for  a  military  candidate.  As  the  discus 
sion  progressed,  the  drift  of  sentiment  seemed  to  be  to 
ward  the  choice  of  a  man  from  the  army,  and  the  names  of 
Generals  Stedman,  a  former  Democrat,  Schenck  and  Cox 
were  mentioned.  Among  those  outside  of  the  army,  Gallo 
way's  name  was  most  favorably  considered.  General  Sted 
man  declined  to  be  a  candidate,  and  the  field  narrowed 
down  to  Galloway  and  Cox. 

On  June  i6th,  Brough,  in  an  open  letter,  declined  to  be 
a  candidate  for  renomination  and  retired  from  the  field. 
Two  years  previous  he  had  undertaken  the  work,  he  said, 
only  from  a  consideration  of  duty,  with  the  determination 
that,  if  the  military  power  of  the  rebellion  should  be  broken 
and  the  war  closed  during  his  first  term,  under  no  circum 
stances  would  he  be  a  candidate  for  reelection.  He  had  al 
lowed  that  position  to  be  modified  to  the  extent  that  while 


206          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [342 

he  would  not  seek  a  renomination,  yet  if  it  should  be  con 
ferred  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  unanimity  he  would  not 
decline  it.  This,  however,  did  not  seem  probable. 

In  times  like  the  past  four  years,  no  man  who  has  filled  the 
position  and  honestly  and  conscientiously  discharged  the  duties 
of  the  office  of  Governor  of  Ohio  could  hope  to  escape  censure 
and  opposition  or  fail  to  destroy  what  politicians  call  his  availa 
bility  as  a  candidate  for  reelection.  Such  was  the  case  with 
two  of  my  predecessors  who  were  earnest  and  good  men.  I 
could  not  and  did  not  hope  to  avoid  the  same  result.1 

A  few  days  later  Galloway  withdrew  and  Cox  was  left  with 
a  clear  field. 

In  the  local  conventions  the  question  of  negro  suffrage 
was  uppermost.  The  Reserve  counties  adopted  resolutions 
strongly  endorsing  it,  while  in  the  more  conservative  coun 
ties  no  expression  was  given.  In  the  Montgomery  county 
convention,  Lieutenant-Governor  Anderson  2  offered  a  re 
solution,  earnestly  protesting  against  enfranchising  the 
negro  because,  "  having  been  so  recently  slaves  we  know 
that  as  a  mass  and  upon  the  average  they  are  not  capable 
and  worthy  of  this  exalted  function."  The  resolution  was 
tabled,  and  another,  giving  it  as  the  opinion  of  the  meeting 
that  it  was  both  unnecessary  and  inexpedient  that  the  state 
convention  should  take  any  action  on  the  question,  was 
disposed  of  by  adjournment.3 

In  the  Ohio  state  convention,  one  of  the  first  to  assemble 
after  the  change  in  the  Presidency  and  the  beginning  of 
the  disagreement  between  Johnson  and  the  radicals,  the 
delegates  were  left  to  formulate  a  platform  without  any 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,    une  I7th. 

8  A  brother  of  Major  Robert  Anderson,  the  hero  of  Fort  Sumter.     He 
was  elected  on  the  ticket  with  Brough  in  1863. 
3  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  June  i6th. 


343]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  2O? 

model.  Senator  Sherman  was  present  to  exercise  a  super 
vision  over  the  work.  The  army  delegates,  one  hundred 
and  forty-three  in  number,  headed  by  Colonel  Charles  H. 
Grosvenor,  were  much  in  evidence,  and  were  allowed  rep 
resentation  on  all  of  the  committees.  They  were  almost 
solidly  opposed  to  negro  suffrage  and  in  favor  of  endorsing 
the  President. 

General  Cox  was  nominated  for  governor  by  acclama 
tion  and  Andrew  G.  McBurney,  a  Unionist  of  Democratic 
antecedents,  who  had  served  in  the  Senate  during  the  war, 
was  given  the  second  place  on  the  ticket.  Of  the  seven 
offices  to  be  filled,  army  men  were  nominated  for  three. 

The  resolutions  were  reported  to  the  convention  by  Judge 
Dickson  of  Cincinnati,  a  Unionist  of  strong  anti-slavery 
sentiments.  They  expressed  thanks  to  God  for  the  over 
throw  of  the  rebellion,  and  the  preservation  of  the  national 
integrity.  Lincoln  was  eulogized,  and  Johnson's  policy 
was  endorsed  as  "  looking  to  the  restoration  of  peace  and 
civil  order  in  the  so-called  seceded  States,"  and  the  "  hearty 
and  undivided  support  "  of  the  Union  men  of  Ohio  was 
pledged  to  him.  The  party  demanded  that  "  reconstruction 
shall  be  at  such  time  and  upon  such  terms  as  will  give  un 
questioned  assurance  of  the  peace  and  security,  not  only  of 
the  loyal  people  of  the  rebel  States,  but  also  of  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  Federal  Union/'  The  proposed  amend 
ment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  abolishing  slavery  was 
endorsed  in  a  resolution  which  held  that  slavery  and  its 
institutions  were  "  irreconcilably  opposed  to  freedom  and 
free  institutions,"  and  that  the  "  bitter  experience  of  the 
war  pointed  unerringly  to  their  overthrow  and  eradication 
as  our  only  safeguard  against  the  recurrence  of  like  evils 
in  the  future."  The  nearest  approach  to  negro  suffrage 
which  the  committee  could  make  was  expressed  in  the  re 
solution,  "  that  the  experience  of  the  last  four  years  shows 


208  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [344 

the  absolute  necessity  in  all  our  political  actions  of  keeping 
steadily  in  view  the  great  principles  of  our  government  as 
set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence." 

After  the  platform  had  been  presented  to  the  convention, 
an  attempt  was  made  by  Don  Piatt  to  add  a  resolution  com 
mitting  the  delegates  to  the  doctrine,  that  the  reconstruc 
tion  of  the  southern  states  constitutionally  belonged  to  Con 
gress.  A  resolution  was  also  proposed  which  had  been 
adopted  by  the  Grant  reception  meeting  held  in  New  York 
two  weeks  before,  asking  the  cooperation  of  the  Federal  and 
state  governments  throughout  the  Union  to  use  all  pos 
sible  means  to  establish  a  system  of  suffrage  which  should 
be  equal  and  just  to  all  loyal  men,  black  as  well  as  white. 
Neither  of  these  proposals  was  allowed  to  come  to  a  vote. 

Owing  to  the  variety  of  public  opinion  then  existing  in 
the  state  on  the  question  of  negro  suffrage,  the  task  of  the 
committee  on  resolutions  had  been  a  difficult  one.  As  first 
drafted  by  a  subcommittee,  the  platform  was  silent  on  the 
matter,  and  a  motion  to  include  an  expression  in  favor  of 
it  was  voted  down.  Then  under  a  threat  of  the  Reserve 
members  to  bring  in  a  minority  report,  Dickson  suggested 
the  compromise  resolution,  on  keeping  in  view  the  principles 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  was  adopted,  in 
order  that  "  the  integrity  of  the  Union  party  might  be  pre 
served  and  the  adoption  of  the  constitutional  amendment 
secured  thereby."  1 

To  the  radical  element  of  the  party,  however,  this  com 
promise  was  very  unsatisfactory.  The  Cleveland  Leader 
voiced  the  general  sentiment  in  that  section  o-f  the  state  in 
saying  that  its  objection  to  the  platform  was  not  to  what 
was  said,  but  what  was  omitted.  "  We  looked  for  a  bold 

1  Letter  of  Judge  Dickson,  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  August  n,  1865. 
See  also  letter  of  Judge  Bishop,  Cleveland  Leader,  June  23d,  and 
speech  of  Hutchins  at  Warren,  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  i6th. 


345]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  209 

and  explicit  declaration  from  the  Convention  on  the  sub 
ject  of  negro  suffrage  in  the  South,  and  of  equal  suffrage 
to  whites  and  blacks  in  the  State  of  Ohio;  we  are  disap 
pointed  that  it  has  not  so  declared."  x  The  most  outspoken 
denunciation  came  from  the  Portage  County  Democrat, 
which  accused  the  convention  of  having  been  under  the 
sway  of  a  timid  conservative  spirit.  "  The  platform  is  a 
didactic  emasculation  unworthy  of  the  Convention  and  un 
worthy  of  the  stern  demands  of  the  hour.  It  enunciates  no 
vital,  living  principle  unless  perchance  the  foggy  reference 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  may  be  regarded  as 
such."  2 

By  the  middle  of  the  summer,  the  breach  between  Presi 
dent  Johnson  and  the  radical  leaders  in  Congress  over  the 
policy  to  be  pursued  in  reconstructing  the  southern  states, 
was  assuming  serious  proportions.  The  radicals  were  be 
coming  alarmed  at  the  danger  of  restoring  political  control 
to  those  who  had  been  actively  engaged  in  rebellion,  and 
were  urging  that  the  work  of  reconstruction  should  be 
taken  out  of  the  President's  hands  by  Congress  and  en 
trusted  to  the  freedmen  and  to  the  loyal  element  in  the 
South.  Senator  Wade  wrote,  July  29th, 

The  President  is  pursuing  and  resolved  to  pursue  a  course  in 
regard  to  reconstruction  that  can  result  in  nothing  but  con 
signing  the  great  Union  or  Republican  party,  bound  hand  and 
foot,  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  rebels  we  have  so  lately  con 
quered  in  the  field  and  their  Copperhead  allies  of  the  North;8 

As  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  opposition  to  the  President, 
Wade  looked  to  Ohio  for  an  endorsement  of  the  radical  pro 
gram,  and  after  the  failure  of  the  convention  to  speak  out, 

1  Editorial,  June  23,  1865.  'Editorial,  June  26,  1865. 

'Quoted  in  Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  v,  p.  533. 


2io          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [346 

his  friends  on  the  Reserve  began  an  active  campaign  for 
negro  suffrage  not  only  in  the  South,  but  in  the  state  as  well. 

Much  was  expected  from  the  candidate  for  governor,  by 
the  friends  of  negro  suffrage,  because  of  his  early  Oberlin 
training.  Shortly  after  the  convention,  he  began  to  re 
ceive  requests  from  both  factions  for  a  declaration  of  his 
views.  Many  letters  from  the  soldiers  in  the  field  were 
published  in  the  Democratic  and  conservative  papers  dur 
ing  July  asking  him  for  a  statement  of  his  position,  but  they 
remained  unanswered.  In  sympathy  with  the  President, 
it  was  his  plan  to  avoid  any  expression  of  opinion  until  the 
opening  of  the  campaign  when  matters  would  probably  be 
more  settled.1 

However,  under  the  pressure  to  which  he  was  subjected 
for  an  expression  of  opinion,  General  Cox  was  driven  to 
make  a  statement.  In  answer  to  a  letter  written  from  Ober 
lin  July  24th,  by  a  committee  of  colored  men,  asking  for  his 
views  in  regard  to  negro  suffrage  both  in  the  state  and  in 
the  South,  he  prepared  an  elaborate  reply.  Protesting 
against  any  obligation  as  a  candidate  to  answer  questions 
which  were  not  acted  upon  by  the  convention,  and  which 

JOn  July  20th,  Cox  wrote:  "There  is  in  the  present  condition  of 
affairs  but  one  thing  which  gives  me  serious  concern  and  that  is  the 
apparent  strength  of  the  disposition  manifested  in  some  quarters  to  out 
run  the  Administration  and  to  separate  from  the  President  if  he  do  not 
see  it  his  duty  to  keep  pace  with  the  most  radical  of  our  people.  I  am 
thoroughly  convinced  that  a  breach  with  the  President  would  be  fatal  to 
the  organization  of  the  Union  party,  and  that  it  would  be  the  surest 
means  of  defeating  the  very  measures  which  are  sought  to  be  carried  by 
such  a  course  Under  these  circumstances  I  feel  that  our  only  hope 

of  future  usefulness  as  an  organization  is  in  teaching  everywhere  that 
unity  among  members  is  a  primary  duty,  and  in  specifically  and  openly 
asserting  that  we  will  not  make  a  nullity  of  our  Convention  resolution 
to  support  the  policy  of  the  Administration  I  shall  keep  very  quiet 

till  the  campaign  opens  which  will  not  be  before  the  middle  of  August. 
Till  that  time  I  shall  avoid  all  political  speechmaking."  MS.  Letter  to 
W.  D.  Bickham. 


347]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  211 

were  notoriously  excluded  from  the  list  of  those  upon  which 
a  community  of  belief  would  be  demanded,  he  proceeded, 
nevertheless,  to  give  his  opinion  on  the  negro  question. 
After  four  years  of  close  and  thoughtful  observation,  he 
said,  he  was  unwillingly  forced  to  the  conviction  that  the 
effects  of  the  war  had  been  not  simply  to  embitter  the  rela 
tions  between  the  two  races  in  the  South,  but  to  develop 
a  rooted  antagonism  which  would  make  their  permanent 
fusion  into  one  political  community  an  absolute  impossi 
bility.  He  proposed  as  a  solution  of  the  problem,  the  peace 
able  separation  of  the  races  on  the  soil  where  they  then  ex 
isted. 

The  details  of  any  system  of  separation  could  only  be  deter 
mined  by  careful  study  and  a  wide  comparison  of  views.  Sup 
pose,  however,  that  without  breaking  up  the  organization  of 
any  State,  you  take  contiguous  territory  in  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  Florida,  and  there,  under  the  sover 
eignty  of  the  United  States  and  with  only  the  facilities  which 
the  power  and  wealth  of  the  Government  can  give,  you  organ 
ize  the  freedmen  in  a  dependency  of  the  Union,  analogous  to 
the  western  Territories.  Give  them  schools,  laws  facilitating 
the  acquirement  of  homesteads  to  be  paid  for  by  their  own 
labor,  full  and  exclusive  political  privileges,  aided  at  the  start, 
should  it  seem  necessary,  by  wise  selections  from  the  largest 
brains  and  most  philanthropic  hearts  among  anti-slavery  men 
to  join  them.1 

He  would  make  no  coercive  collection  of  the  colored  men 
in  the  designated  region,  but  the  majority  being  already 
there,  he  thought  the  reward  of  political  power  would  draw 
the  remainder  rapidly. 

Judge  Dickson  published  a  reply  to  this  letter  explaining 
the  procedure  in  the  committee  on  resolutions  and  declaring 

1  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  August  2d . 


212  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [348 

that,  from  his  own  observation,  he  was  satisfied  that  a  large 
majority  of  the  convention  were  of  the  opinion  that  negro 
suffrage  would  and  ought  to  come,  but  that  an  expression 
on  the  subject  had  been  waived  in  the  interests  of  har 
mony.  A  man  might  be  a  member  of  the  Union  party  in 
good  standing,  whether  he  was  for  or  against  negro  suf 
frage.  Considering  the  letter,  therefore,  merely  as  Cox's 
private  opinion,  Dickson  denied  the  existence  of  any  "  rooted 
antagonism "  and  the  whole  philosophy  founded  upon  it. 
He  thought  there  was  no  antagonism  which  would  necessi 
tate  the  separation  of  the  southern  whites  and  blacks  any 
more  than  the  separation  of  the  northern  and  southern 
whites.  If  the  negro  were  given  a-  vote,  he  would  be  re 
spected  by  the  white  man,  but  if  it  was  the  intention  to  make 
him  a  pariah,  then  a  bloody  war  of  races  must  sometime 
ensue.1 

In  order  to  secure  the  opinion  of  an  eminent  economist 
on  the  subject,  Dickson  sent  the  Cox  letter,  with  his  own 
answer  to  it,  to  John  Stuart  Mill  in  England.  Under  date 
of  September  ist,  Mill  replied  that  it  would  not  be  right 
to  allow  the  states  to  be  restored  as  they  were  and  reduce 
the  negro  to  practical  slavery  again;  that  some  guarantee 
should  be  exacted.  He  regarded  Cox's  plan  of  coloniza 
tion  as  chimerical,  and  suggested  rather,  that  political  con 
trol  should  be  granted  to  "  a  mixed  community  in  which 
the  population  who  have  been  corrupted  by  vicious  institu 
tions  will  be  neutralized  by  black  citizens  and  white  immi 
grants  from  the  North."  He  was  not  averse  to  imposing 
an  educational  qualification  on  the  negro  provided  it  be  re 
quired  equally  from  the  whites.2 

The  publication  of  Cox's  letter  precipitated  a  storm  of 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  nth. 
*  Ibid.,  September  20th. 


349]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  213 

discussion  between  the  radical  and  conservative  papers  of 
the  state.  The  Portage  County  Democrat  again  reached 
the  height  of  denunciation  in  its  remarks.  It  called  the 
letter  "  a  verbose  and  turgid  essay  ",  and  held  that  it  would 
have  been  better  "  to  have  rejected  either  the  nomination  or 
the  evasive  platform,  than  to  surrender  manhood  or  aposta 
tize  from  the  principles  and  antecedents  of  former  years."  1 
The  other  Reserve  papers,  though  disappointed  in  the  letter, 
tried  to  make  the  best  of  it  by  declaring  that  it  was  merely 
a  private  opinion  and  could  have  no  effect  on  the  question 
at  issue.  The  papers  of  the  southern  part  of  the  state  came 
to  the  rescue  of  the  candidate,  and  denounced  the  Oberlin 
radicals,  declaring  that  their  program  was  sustained  by  less 
than  one-tenth  of  the  convention,  and  that  Cox's  views  were 
those  of  the  whole  army,  as  well  as  those  of  the  majority  of 
the  people  of  the  state. 

The  Democracy  remained  quiet  until  the  Union  party 
had  thus  announced  its  program.  On  the  day  after  the  Union 
convention,  the  inner  circle  of  the  party  met  at  Columbus 
for  a  conference.  They  not  only  failed  to  agree  upon  any 
platform  of  principles,  but  there  was  an  actual  break  in  the 
council,  the  state-sovereignty  leaders  withdrawing  from  its 
deliberations. 

The  nomination  of  General  Cox  inspired  the  opposing 
party  to  turn  to  an  army  candidate,  and  the  name  of  Gen 
eral  Sherman  was  suggested.  It  was  received  with  ap 
proval,  but  the  move  was  suddenly  checked  by  the  General 
himself.  In  an  address  delivered  at  Columbus,  July  1 3th, 
on  the  occasion  of  a  celebration  held  in  his  honor,  he  an 
nounced  that  he  had  no  political  aspiration,  but  intended  to 
hold  his  place  in  the  army;  he  would  not  even  accept  the 
office  of  President.  He  expressed  surprise  that  his  friend 

1  Editorial,  August  gth. 


214  OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [350 

Cox  would  exchange  a  major-generalship  for  the  governor 
ship,  but  was  willing  to  support  him  in  his  candidacy.1 

The  state-sovereignty  Democrats,  failing  to  receive  con 
sideration  for  their  views  on  nullification  and  secession  at 
the  Democratic  conference,  proceeded  on  their  own  account. 
Early  in  the  year  they  had  organized  a  state-sovereignty 
society  at  Cincinnati  for  the  discussion  of  political  questions, 
and  had  formed  plans  for  securing  control  of  the  local  con 
vention  in  that  city  in  March.2  Failing  in  this,  they  con 
tinued  their  activity  and,  during  the  summer,  formed  asso 
ciations  in  Highland  and  Madison  counties.3  Finally,  on 
August  1 7th  a  state  convention  was  held  and  a  full  ticket, 
headed  by  Alexander  Long,  nominated  on  a  platform  em 
bodying  the  doctrines  of  state  nullification.  With  the  idea 
that  it  would  weaken  the  party,  the  Unionist  papers  en 
couraged  the  movement,  while  the  Democratic  press  ridi 
culed  the  affair,  the  Plain  Dealer  dubbing  it  "  a  little  tea 
party  of  sore  heads  ". 

The  regular  convention  of  the  Democracy  was  not  held 
until  August  24th,  an  unusually  late  date.  Vallandigham, 
as  temporary  chairman,  thanked  the  party  for  his  nomina 
tion  two  years  before,  and  announced  that  the  immediate 
duty  of  the  convention  was  to  reaffirm  the  ancient  and  time- 
honored  principles  of  the  party  and  to  announce  a  policy 
with  reference  to  the  new  issues  of  the  day,  especially  those 
of  the  Union  of  the  states  and  negro  suffrage  and  equality. 

The  platform  adopted  was  an  extremely  long  one.  As 
opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  state-sovereignty  faction, 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  party  was  declared  to  be,  not  nulli 
fication  and  secession,  but  the  doctrine  of  state  rights  as 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,  July  14,  1865. 

2  See  letter  of  Cory  to  William  Cornell  Jewett;  Ohio  State  Journal, 
March  13,  1865. 

8  Cincinnati  Commercial,  July  21  st.     Ohio  State  Journal,  August  sth . 


351  ]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  215 

announced  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  and 
interpreted  by  their  authors.  The  ordinances  of  secession 
being  void,  the  so-called  seceded  states  were  still  in  the 
Union  as  states,  and  therefore  entitled  to  all  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  states.  The  effort  to  confer  the  right  of  suf 
frage  upon  the  negro  was  held  to  be  "  an  insidious  attempt 
to  overthrow  popular  institutions,  by  bringing  the  right  to 
vote  into  disgrace  ",  and  it  was  declared  "  that  this  Gov 
ernment  was  made  by  white  men,  and  so  far  as  we  have 
the  power  to  preserve  it,  it  shall  continue  to  be  a  government 
of  white  men."  Finally,  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  the 
President,  it  was  resolved :  "  That  while  we  will  resolutely 
and  persistently  condemn  all  infractions  of  the  Constitution 
by  whomsoever  committed  .  .  .  we  will  nevertheless  stand 
by  President  Johnson  in  all  Constitutional  efforts  to  restore 
immediately  to  the  States  the  exercise  of  their  rights  and 
powers  under  the  Constitution." 

The  ticket  nominated  was  headed  by  General  George  W. 
Morgan,  who  had  represented  the  United  States  as  minister 
to  Portugal  during  Buchanan's  administration  and,  during 
the  first  three  years  of  the  war,  had  served  as  a  brigadier- 
general.  In  his  speech  before  the  convention,  he  held  that 
the  southern  states  should  be  received  again  as  friends, 
both  sides  confessing  that  they  had  profited  by  the  terrible 
lesson  of  the  four  years  of  war.  He  was  opposed  to  Gen 
eral  Cox's  plan  of  segregating  the  negroes,  because  Con 
gress  had  no  authority  under  the  Constitution  to  convert 
one  or  more  states  into  ?  negro  dependency.  The  la'nd 
would  have  to  be  acquired  by  purchase  or  by  the  extermina 
tion  of  the  whites.  The  purchase,  he  considered,  would  be 
impossible  since  it  would  involve  an  expenditure  of  the 
enormous  sum  of  about  $600,000,000.  His  solution  was 
for  the  negroes  to  remain  where  they  were,  protected  in  life 
and  liberty,  without  suffrage  rights.  He  was  opposed  to 


216          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [352 

enfranchising  the  negro  in  Ohio  or  in  the  South,  at  any  time 
or  under  any  circumstances.1 

In  consequence  of  this  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  negro 
question,  the  campaign  of  the  year  was  rather  complicated. 
Since  this  was  the  year  for  the  selection  of  a  new  legisla 
ture,  the  radical  Unionists  were  interested  in  securing  the 
election  of  members  who  would  favor  the  submission  to  the 
people  of  an  amendment  to  strike  the  word  "  white  "  from 
the  state  Constitution.  In  all  the  local  conventions  on  the 
Reserve,  resolutions  were  adopted  calling  for  this  change 
and  repudiating  Cox's  plan.  But  outside  of  this  section 
of  the  state,  the  Unionises  were  inclined  to  stand  by  the 
convention  resolution  endorsing  the  President's  policy  of 
reconstruction.  The  Democrats  were  disturbed  somewhat  by 
the  bolting  of  the  Long  and  Cory  faction  and  its  nomina 
tion  of  a  separate  state  ticket  and  of  separate  local  tickets  in 
a  few  of  the  counties.2 

The  Unionists  opened  their  campaign  at  Warren,  the 
home  of  General  Cox,  on  August  I5th.  The  speakers  were 
Cox,  Tod,  Garfield  and  Hutchins,  the  successor  of  Gid- 
dings  in  Congress,  and  their  addresses  emphasized  the  wide 
divergence  of  views  in  the  party.  Cox  held  that  the  de 
feated  rebels  of  the  South  were  looking  to  the  Copperhead 
element  of  the  Democracy  as  their  natural  ally  in  the  politi 
cal  struggle  which  was  taking  the  place  of  the  military  con 
flict,  and  that  the  Union  party  must  therefore  be  kept  to 
gether  to  do  what  the  Union  army  began.  He  discussed  the 
two  solutions  of  the  negro  suffrage  question,  separation  and 
amalgamation,  and  defended  the  plan  announced  in  his 
Oberlin  letter.  Garfield  and  Hutchins  spoke  against  Cox's 
plan,  and  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  giving  the  fran- 


1  Ohio  Statesman,  August  25th. 
'Highland,  Madison  and  Hamilton. 


353]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  2IJ 

chise  to  the  negro  both  in  the  South  and  in  the  state.  Tod 
was  opposed  to  changing  the  state  Constitution,  because 
he  did  not  want  to  do  an  injustice  to  the  colored  men  by 
inviting  them  into  the  state  when  they  were  better  off  in 
the  South,  and  he  had  gone  to  Washington,  he  said,  to  urge 
on  the  President  that  the  blacks  in  the  South  should  not  be 
permitted  to  vote. 

During  the  course  of  a  speech  at  Oberlin,  August  2ist, 
Cox  was  asked  if  he  would  favor  a  negro  suffrage  amend 
ment  to  the  state  Constitution  if  elected.  He  had  not  an 
swered  this  question  in  his  letter  to  the  Oberlin  committee, 
and  had  avoided  it  in  his  earlier  speeches  of  the  campaign. 
His  reply  was  that  he  believed  the  question  must  be  settled 
for  the  colored  race  as  a  unit,  and  that  the  duty  of  the  negro 
in  the  state  was  to  connect  his  destiny  with  that  of  his 
brethren  in  the  South.  However,  if  the  matter  had  to  be 
determined  by  each  state  for  itself  and  the  South  for  itself, 
he  would  favor  the  application  of  the  full  rights  of  man  in 
Ohio.1 

General  Morgan  did  not  open  his  campaign  until  the 
middle  of  September.  In  his  opening  speech,  he  made 
much  of  the  probable  effect  on  labor  in  Ohio  of  conferring 
suffrage  on  the  negroes  and  thus  extending  an  invitation  to 
the  colored  people  of  the  South  to  come  into  the  state.  He 
read  from  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  sermons  on  "  Miscege 
nation  "  and  "  Universal  Suffrage  ",  both  of  which  he  de 
clared  were  being  used  by  the  Unionists  as  campaign  docu 
ments.  He  repeated  the  attack  made  in  his  convention 
speech  on  Cox's  plan  on  the  ground  of  the  vast  expense  it 
would  involve.  The  question  of  reconstructing  the  southern 
states  was  handled  by  Vallandigham,  who  argued  for  a 
full  restoration  of  their  rights,  and  urged  that  the  past  be 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  22d. 


2i8          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [354 

forgotten  and  only  present  issues  be  considered.  He  was 
forced,  however,  by  the  attacks  of  his  opponents  to  take  up 
a  defense  of  his  record  during  the  war. 

The  Democrats  worked  on  the  feeling  against  negro  suf 
frage  with  all  their  power  and  strategy.  A  few  days  before 
the  election  was  held,  an  address  was  issued  by  the  state 
executive  committee  calling  attention  to  the 

monstrous  scheme  of  the  radicals  to  place  negroes  upon  a  foot 
ing  of  perfect  political  and  social  equality  with  the  whites  and 
to  govern  the  country  in  all  time  to  come  by  means  of  negro 
votes.  ...  to  the  frauds,  peculations  and  defalcations  of  aboli 
tion  officials,  almost  daily  brought  to  light,  and  the  contrast 
between  the  ambiguous  and  deceptive  platform  of  the  abolition 
State  Convention,  and  the  unequivocal,  outspoken  principles 
announced  by  our  Convention.1 

Advances  were  made  to  the  soldiers,  who  were  as  a  rule 
opposed  to  granting  the  franchise  to  the  colored  people 
either  in  the  state  or  in  the  South,  and  in  local  conventions 
they  were  given  prominent  places  on  the  tickets.  The 
Democratic  state  ticket  was  called  the  "Soldiers  and  Sailors' 
ticket "  and  the  "  White  man's  ticket."  The  question 
of  taxing  the  bonds  of  the  United  States  was  also  injected 
into  the  campaign. 

There  was  no  progress  made  by  the  Unionists  toward 
uniting  on  the  suffrage  question  as  the  campaign  advanced, 
though  they  realized  that  it  must  have  an  important  effect 
on  the  election.2  Governor  Brough,  on  account  of  illness, 

1  Crisis,  October  4th. 

'Flamen  Ball,  U.  S.  District  Attorney,  wrote  to  Chase,  August  22cl: 
"Politics  run  wild  in  Ohio.  Cox,  your  old  friend,  seems  to  have  fallen 
into  the  arms  of  the  Conservatives  and  to  have  ignored  all  the  former 
teachings  of  Oberlin  -  .  His  course,  unfortunate  as  it  is,  will  not  I 
think  defeat  his  election,  but  it  must  greatly  reduce  the  Union  majority 
and  thus  give  an  impulse  to  the  Copperhead  faction."  Chase  Papers, 
MS. 


355]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  219 

was  not  able  to  take  a  part  in  the  contest.  He  dissented, 
however,  from  the  views  of  Cox,  and  predicted  that  Cox 
would  live  to  see  the  day  when  he  would  regret  having  ex 
pressed  them.  He  had  faith  that  the  President  would  suc 
ceed  in  reaching  the  right  policy  toward  the  South,  and 
urged  that  the  people  support  him.1  But  the  Reserve  was 
determined  to  stand  or  fall  on  the  question  of  conferring 
political  rights  on  the  negro. 

The  vote  in  the  election,  as  compared  with  that  of  1863, 
was  light,  almost  60,000  fewer  ballots  being  cast.  .  While 
Morgan's  vote  was  6,000  greater  than  that  of  Vallandig- 
ham  had  been,  the  Union  vote  showed  a  decrease  of  about 
65,000 — one-third  of  which  came  from  the  Reserve.  Cox 
received  a  majority  of  30,000  over  his  opponent,  while  the 
average  majority  of  the  other  Union  candidates  was  about 
31,500.  Long  received  only  360  votes.  The  legislature 
as  elected  stood:  House,  70  Unionists  and  35  Democrats; 
Senate,  25  Unionists  and  12  Democrats. 

Under  the  circumstances,  the  election  settled  nothing  as 
to  negro  suffrage,  and  the  contest  was  transferred  to  the 
new  legislature.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session  in  January, 
1866,  a  resolution  was  offered  in  the  Senate,  by  one  of  the 
Reserve  members,  providing  that  an  amendment  eliminat 
ing  the  word  "  white  "  from  the  state  Constitution  should 
be  submitted  to  the  voters  at  the  next  October  election.2 
The  discussion,  begun  during  the  campaign,  was  taken  up 
throughout  the  state  with  increased  animation.  Governor 
Anderson,  in  his  annual  message,3  took  a  decided  starid 
against  the  project,  as  he  had  done  during  the  campaign. 

'Letter of  W.  H.  Smith  to  Chase,  September  7,  1865.  Chase  Papers, 
MS. 

'*•  Senate  Journal,  1865,  p.  8. 

3  Executive  Documents,  1865,  pt.  i,  p.  201.  Anderson  had  succeeded 
to  the  office  on  the  death  of  Brough  in  the  preceding  year. 


220          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [356 

Many  of  the  conservatives  expressed  their  willingness  to 
let  the  amendment  go  to  the  people  so  that  it  might  be 
voted  down  and  thus  settle  the  matter.  The  colored  people 
of  the  state  organized  an  "  equal  rights  league  ",  and  in 
addition  to  besieging  the  legislature  with  petitions,  met  in 
convention  at  the  state  capital  to  present  their  claims  in 
person.  During  the  progress  of  the  discussion,  it  was 
pointed  out  by  the  press  that  the  resolution  could  not  be 
submitted  until  the  election  of  1867,*  and  on  this  account  its 
consideration  was  postponed  until  the  next  session,  by  which 
time  the  radicals  hoped  popular  sentiment  would  be  more 
favorable  to  its  passage. 

The  question  of  choosing  a  United  States  Senator  came 
up  in  the  midst  of  the  discussion  on  the  negro.  There  was 
considerable  opposition  among  the  radicals  to  returning 
Sherman,  because  of  his  record  on  several  of  the  war  meas 
ures.  He  had  voted  against  the  endorsement  of  Lincoln's 
suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  He  had  supported 
the  plan  to  limit  emancipation  only  to  the  slaves  of  those  in 
rebellion,  and  had  proposed  so  to  amend  the  bill  for  rais 
ing  colored  soldiers  as  to  entitle  masters  to  pay  for  the  ser 
vices  of  their  slaves.  Finally,  he  had  voted  against  the  re 
peal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  in  1863.  General  Schenck 
was  a  candidate  against  Sherman,  but,  notwithstanding  the 
opposition,  on  January  i/th  Sherman  was  nominated  in 
caucus  on  the  second  ballot,  and  later  duly  reflected. 

ATTITUDE  OF  OHIO  TOWARD  THE  QUARREL  BETWEEN   PRESI 
DENT  JOHNSON   AND   CONGRESS 

During  the  session  of  Congress  which  began  on  Decem 
ber  4,  1865,  the  quarrel  between  President  Johnson  and  the 


Constitution  says,  article  xvi,  section  i,  that  amendments  may 
be  voted  on  only  at  an  election  held  for  choosing  senators  and  repre 
sentatives. 


357]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  22I 

radicals  over  reconstruction  became  acute.  The  Freed- 
meii's  Bureau  bill,  passed  by  Congress  on  February  6th, 
was  vetoed  on  the  iQth.  On  March  I3th  the  Civil  Rights 
bill  was  sent  to  the  President,  and  on  the  2/th  met  a  like 
fate.  The  passage  of  this  last  bill  over  the  President's 
veto  on  April  Qth  "  rendered  the  breach  between  him  and 
Congress  complete/' 1  There  was  also  under  discussion  a 
bill  to  extend  the  suffrage  to  the  negro  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which,  as 
finally  passed  on  June  I3th  and  ratified  by  the  states, 
became  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  All  of  these  matters 
came  into  prominence  in  the  state  legislature,  and  by  the 
close  of  the  session,  April  6,  1866,  the  line  was  sharply 
drawn  in  Ohio  between  the  Johnson  men  and  the  supporters 
of  the  radical  policy  of  Congress. 

In  accordance  with  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  plat 
form  of  the  party  in  1865,  the  Johnson  men  attempted  to 
get  an  endorsement  of  his  policy  from  the  legislature.  Two 
resolutions  with  this  in  view  were  offered  in  the  Senate 
during  January.2  One  of  these  was  tabled  and  the  other 
referred  to  the  committee  on  Federal  relations,  which  re 
ported  a  compromise  substitute,  approving  Johnson's  policy, 
but  also  expressing  confidence  in  the  faithfulness  and  wis 
dom  of  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  its  powers  in  the  work 
of  reconstruction.8  No  action  was  taken  on  the  report.  In 
the  House  a  similar  resolution  was  tabled,  and  later  a  vote 
to  take  it  up  for  discussion  was  supported  by  all  the  Demo 
crats  present,  twenty-nine,  and  by  twelve  Unionists,  while 
forty-three  Unionists  opposed  it.4  At  a  Union  caucus  held 
on  February  2Oth,  to  consider  the  veto  of  the  Freedmen's 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  v,  p.  586. 

*  Senate  Journal,  pp.  37  and  54. 

*Ibid.t  p.  99.  *  House  Journal,  p.  151. 


222  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [358 

Bureau  bill,  a  resolution  was  adopted  applauding  the  action 
of  the  Union  members  of  Congress  from  Ohio,  in  their 
support  of  the  measure.  A  Democratic  caucus  held  on  the 
same  day  resolved  to  support  the  President.1  A  few  days 
later  in  the  House,  a  resolution  was  proposed  stating  that 
the  action  of  the  Union  caucus  did  not  properly  represent 
the  views  of  the  General  Assembly,  but  this  was  tabled. 
When  the  news  of  the  veto  of  the  Civil  Rights  bill  came, 
one  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  House  proposed  a 
vote  of  thanks  to  the  President  for  his  act.  The  session 
ended,  however,  without  any  official  expression  of  opinion 
by  the  legislature  either  for  or  against  the  President's  policy, 
although  it  was  known  that  he  was  very  solicitious  in  re 
gard  to  the  views  of  the  people  of  Ohio,  as  reflected  by  her 
legislature.2 

Outside  of  the  legislature  the  division  into  opponents 
and  supporters  of  Johnson  was  rapidly  being  made.  John 
son  ratification  meetings  were  held  by  the  Democracy  to 
endorse  the  President's  action  on  the  congressional  meas 
ures,  and  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Assembly  issued 
an  address  to  the  people  of  the  state  asserting  that  the  Aboli 
tionists  were  engaged  in  schemes  to  destroy  the  southern 
states  and  hold  them  in  vassalage.3 

Governor  Cox  was  active  in  trying  to  reconcile  the  dif 
ferences  between  the  two  factions.  Two  days  after  Johnson 
made  his  indiscreet  speech  of  February  22d,4  Cox  went 
to  Washington  and  had  an  interview  with  him  in  which 
Johnson  elaborated  his  views  on  reconstruction.  His  whole 

1  Ohio  State  Journal,  February  2ist,  and  Statesman  of  same  date. 

*  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  wrote 
to  his  paper  that  the  President  would  be  much  encouraged  by  an  en 
dorsement  of  his  policy  by  the  Ohio  legislature. 

8  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  March  7th . 

*McPherson,  History  ot  Reconstruction,  p.  58. 


359]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  223 

heart,  he  said,  was  with  the  true  men  who  had  carried  the 
country  through  the  war,  but  opposed  to  the  obstructionist 
policy  of  the  extremists  who  would  bring  ruin  on  the  nation. 
Cox  wrote  these  views  down,  and  after  having  them  veri 
fied  by  the  President,  sent  them  in  a  letter  to  the  chairman 
of  the  Union  state  central  committee  with  this  postscript : 

Such,  my  dear  sir,  is  the  statement  of  the  President  on  this 
important  matter,  and  if  you  could  meet  his  straightforward 
honest  look  and  hear  the  hearty  tones  of  his  voice  as  I  did,  I 
am  well  assured  you  could  believe  with  me  that,  although  he 
may  not  receive  personal  assault  with  the  forbearance  Mr.  Lin 
coln  used  to  show,  there  is  no  need  to  fear  that  Andrew  John 
son  is  not  sincere  in  his  adhesion  to  the  principles  upon  which 
he  was  elected.1 

This  generous  endorsement  was  destined  to  cause  the  gov 
ernor  some  embarrassment  later  on. 

With  the  idea  of  taking  full  advantage  of  the  break  in  the 
Unionist  ranks,  the  Democrats  fixed  on  an  early  date,  May 
24th,  for  the  holding  of  their  state  convention.  In  the  call 
the  great  issue  before  the  country  was  declared  to  be  whether 
all  the  powers  of  government  should  be  concentrated  in 
the  hands  of  the  general  government  and  a  consolidated 
despotism  be  thereby  established,  or  whether  the  rights  of 
local  self-government  should  be  preserved.  An  invitation 
was  extended  to  all  who  were  opposed  to  the  schemes  of 
the  conspirators,  who  cherished  the  institution  founded  by 
the  fathers,  or  who  were  opposed  to  negro  suffrage,  t(  to 
join  with  the  Democracy  in  rescuing  the  country  from  the 
malignants."  There  was  much  in  the  situation  to  give  the 
Democrats  hopes  of  success  in  the  campaign  of  the  year, 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  February  27th.     Also   Rhodes,  History  of 
the  U.  S.,  vol.  v,  p.  578. 


224          OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [360 

if  the  proper  steps  were  taken.  Vallandigham  wrote  to 
Thurman  a  few  days  before  the  convention  :  "  We  have  the 
game  in  our  own  hands;  let  us  play  it  boldly  and  strongly."  * 

A  conference  of  the  leaders  was  held  just  before  the  con 
vention  met,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  a  short,  concise 
platform  should  be  adopted;  the  assumption  was  that  the 
issue  in  the  campaign  would  be  the  restoration  of  the  south 
ern  states.2 

The  convention  brought  together  many  of  the  hitherto 
scattered  and  lukewarm  members  of  the  party  from  all  sec 
tions  of  the  state,  many  of  whom  had  not  been  active  in  its 
councils  since  the  early  years  of  the  war.  The  keynote 
was  opposition  to  congressional  despotism  and  support  of 
the  President.  The  platform  followed  the  decision  of  the 
leaders,  and  consisted  of  three  brief  resolutions  which  had 
been  adopted  a  few  days  previous  in  the  Montgomery  county 
convention,  where  Vallandigham  was  chairman  of  the  com 
mittee  on  resolutions.3  It  declared  the  one  great  question  of 
the  day  to  be  :  "  The  immediate  and  unconditional  restora 
tion  of  all  the  States  to  the  exercise  of  their  rights  within 
the  Federal  Union  under  the  Constitution."  The  President 
was  pledged  cordial  and  active  support  "  in  all  necessary 
and  proper  means  to  carry  out  his  policy  as  directed  to  that 
that  end,  and  especially  in  securing  immediate  representa 
tion  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  to  the 
eleven  States  from  which  it  is  now  unconstitutionally  and 
arbitrarily  held." 

Thurman,  Vallandigham  and  Pendleton  addressed  the 
delegates  on  the  issue  before  the  country.  Vallandigham 
became  rather  violent  in  his  denunciation  of  Congress,  and 


Letter  in  the  Governor  Allen  Papers. 
2  Cincinnati  Commercial,  May  24th. 
*Ibid,  May  26th. 


361]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  225 

said  of  the  proposition  then  on  foot  to  depose  Johnson :  "  If 
they  should  attempt  his  deposition,  the  President  would 
be  right  in  bringing  to  bear  against  them  the  whole  power 
of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States."  In  contrast 
ing  conditions  existing  at  that  time  with  those  of  the  pre 
ceding  administration,  he  said :  "  But  a  little  while  ago  we 
came  to  conventions  with  our  lives  in  the  hollow  of  our 
hands.  Heavily  armed  the  Democracy  came  here.  To-day 
they  came  unarmed  and  in  peace.  A  new  administration 
has  been  inaugurated  at  Washington."  * 

This  was  a  well-planned  and  well-executed  stroke  to  se 
cure  the  support  of  the  Johnson  element  of  the  Union  party. 
To  counteract  it,  necessitated  unusual  efforts  on  the  part  of 
the  Unionist  leaders,  in  devising  some  platform  which  could 
hold  both  factions  of  the  party  together.  In  the  call  for 
the  Union  convention,  therefore,  an  appeal  for  harmony 
was  made  on  the  broad  ground  of  patriotism.  Though  the 
war  was  over,  the  same  political  issues  were  held  to  be  still 
before  the  country,  together  with  new  and  important  ques 
tions  involving  the  credit  of  the  government  at  home  and 
abroad.  The  party  was  urged  to  "  ignore  false  issues  and 
all  appeals  to  passion  and  prejudice  "  and  "  meet  in  council 
resolved  to  stand  by  the  principles  which  have  guided  us 
during  the  first  years  of  trial." 

In  the  local  conventions,  the  question  of  supporting  the 
President  came  up,  but  in  most  of  them  no  action  was  taken. 
In  a  few  counties  the  congressional  policy  was  endorsed. 
In  Butler  county  resolutions  were  adopted  demanding  that 
loyal  citizens  be  protected  and  traitors  punished,  in  order 
that  the  country  might  know  that  rebellion  and  treason 
were  criminal  and  ought  to  be  made  odious.  Lewis  D. 
Campbell  offered  others  endorsing  the  President's  policy 

1  Ohio  Statesman,  May  25th. 


226  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [362 

and  opposing  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  in  Ohio  to 
negroes.  After  much  discussion,  the  convention  adjourned 
without  taking  any  action  on  these  resolutions.  As  a  result, 
under  the  leadership  of  Campbell,  a  second  convention  was 
held  and  they  were  adopted  as  a  platform.1 

When  the  state  convention  met,  June  2Oth,  the  efforts 
to  secure  harmonious  action  were  made  manifest  in  all  of  its 
proceedings.  The  temporary  chairman,2  reverting  to  the 
fact  that  the  party  had  preserved  its  unity  for  the  past  five 
years,  urged  that  all  differences  be  adjusted  so  that  the 
fruits  of  the  war  might  not  be  lost.  The  problem  of  con 
structing  a  platform  was  simplified  somewhat  by  the  fact 
that  the  Reserve  was  willing  that  negro  suffrage  should  be 
laid  aside  until  the  next  year,  and  by  the  passage  of  the 
resolution  by  Congress  just  a  week  before  proposing  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment.  In  presenting  the  resolutions,  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  said  that  they  had  been  framed 
with  the  purpose  of  avoiding  technical  difficulties  and  of 
embodying  the  principles  of  the  loyal  people  of  the  state. 
They  demanded  that  peace  should  be  established  "  upon 
such  stable  foundations  that  rebellion  and  secession  will 
never  again  endanger  our  national  existence,"  endorsed  the 
proposed  Amendment  "  as  a  liberal,  wise  and  patriotic  ad 
justment,"  and  pledged  to  it  the  united  and  hearty  support 
of  the  Union  party  of  Ohio. 

While  the  idea  of  harmony  was  uppermost,  the  conven 
tion  was  dominated  by  the  supporters  of  Congress,  and  all 
of  the  nominees  on  the  ticket  were  of  that  faction.  The 
Cincinnati  Commercial,  speaking  for  the  conservative  ele 
ment,  thought  the  platform  "  was  carefully  studied,  judi 
cious,  simple  and  comprehensive,"  and  a  fair  compromise 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  June  nth. 
'Judge  Hoadley  of  Cincinnati. 


363]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  22? 

between  the  original  proposition  of  the  radicals  and  the  pro 
gram  of  the  President.1 

Yet  the  endorsement  of  the  congressional  policy,  mild 
as  it  was,  gave  little  comfort  to  the  Johnson  men,  and  when 
the  call  came  from  the  "  National  Union  Club "  for  a 
national  convention  2  of  those  "  who,  in  a  spirit  of  patriotism 
and  love  for  the  Union,  can  rise  above  personal  and  sec 
tional  consideration,  and  who  desire  to  see  a  truly  National 
convention  which  shall  represent  all  the  States  and  Terri 
tories  of  the  Union,"  they  vigorously  took  up  the  work  of 
organizing  the  state  for  this  new  party  movement.  A  call 
for  a  mass  convention  to  meet  August  7th  was  issued, 
signed  by  about  a  hundred  names  representing  sixteen 
counties.  All  Union  men  were  invited  to  come  who  be 
lieved  the  union  of  the  states  to  be  indissoluble,  who  desired 
that  loyal  representatives  should  be  admitted  to  their  seats 
in  Congress,  who  held  that  to  each  state  belonged  the  regu 
lation  of  its  own  elective  franchise  and  who  were  unwilling 
to  declare  the  war  for  the  Union  a  practical  failure  by  mak 
ing  its  restoration  contingent  upon  political  issues,  inde 
pendent  of  obedience  to  the  Constitution  and  of  submission 
to  the  laws. 

Those  who  were  most  active  in  this  movement  in  the 
state  were  of  course  men  who  were  holding  Federal  offices 
under  appointment  from  Johnson.  With  them  were  asso 
ciated  many  of  the  Unionists  of  Democratic  antecedents, 
such  as  General  Stedman  and  William  S.  Groesbeck,  who 
refused  to  follow  the  Union  party  into  the  ranks  of  the 
radicals,  and  many  of  the  old  Whigs,  such  as  Lewis  D. 
Campbell  and  Thomas  Ewing.  A  great  effort  was  made, 
apparently  on  the  suggestion  of  President  Johnson,  to  se- 

1  Editorial,  June  22d. 

2  Dunning,  Reconstruction,  p.  73. 


228  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [-564 

cure  the  cooperation  of  Governor  Tod,  but  the  advances 
made  to  him  met  with  no  response.1 

The  Democratic  members  of  Congress  approved  the  call 
for  the  national  convention,  and  accepted  the  invitation  ex 
tended  to  the  Democracy  to  participate.  By  the  plan 
adopted,  each  state  was  to  be  allowed  eight  delegates  at 
large  and  four  from  each  congressional  district,  to  be  di 
vided  equally  between  the  Democrats  and  the  Johnson  men. 
However,  owing  to  the  shrewd  move  which  the  Democrats 
of  Ohio  had  made  in  their  convention,  to  bring  the  Johnson 
men  under  their  standard,  there  was  much  opposition  shown, 
especially  by  Vallandigham,  to  thus  sacrificing  the  party. 
While  refusing  to  have  anything  to  do  with  Vallandigham, 
Johnson  made  overtures  to  the  more  conservative  members 
of  the  party  to  secure  their  support.  A  meeting  of  the 
state  central  committee  was  called  for  July  I2th  to  take 
action  on  the  matter,  and  it  was  then  resolved  that,  since  the 
movement  was  likely  to  result  in  the  organization  of  a  third 
party,  no  delegates  should  be  sent,  but  the  identity  of  the 
party  preserved.2  On  the  next  day,  for  some  reason,  this 
action  was  reconsidered,  and  the  executive  committee  was 
authorized  to  appoint  the  delegates  at  large  and  to  issue  an 
address  to  the  Democrats  of  the  several  congressional  dis 
tricts,  recommending  the  appointment  of  the  district  dele 
gates  by  the  several  county  central  committees  or  by  dis 
trict  conventions. 

These  instructions  were  carried  out,  and  the  address  when 
issued  stated  that  had  not  the  state  committee  "  been  fully 
satisfied  that  the  proposed  Convention  has  not  for  its  object 
a  disbanding  of  the  Democratic  party  and  merging  it  in  a 

'Letters  of  J.  H.  Geiger,  August  2d,  and  R.  P.  L.  Baber,  Septem 
ber  28th,  to  Johnson.  Johnson  Papers,  MS. 

'Letters  of  Gen.  G.  W.  Morgan  to  Johnson,  July  7th,  i3th  and  I4th. 
Johnson  Papers  MS. 


365]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  229 

new  organization,"  the  members  would  not  for  a  moment 
have  sanctioned  it."  As  delegates  at  large,  Ex-Senator 
Allen,  Pendleton,  General  Morgan  and  M.  R.  Willett  were 
selected. 

Vallandigham  was  left  off  the  list  apparently  by  design, 
but  was  made  a  delegate  by  his  district.  Stung  by  the  slight 
which  he  rightly  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  Johnson 
men,  he  wrote  an  open  letter  to  the  state  central  committee, 
in  which  he  said  that  he  had  accepted  the  appointment  of 
delegate  only  on  the  assurance  that  it  was  not  the  intention 
of  the  convention  to  propose  any  measure  looking  to  the 
disbanding  of  the  Democratic  party.  He  attributed  the 
jealousy,  shown  toward  the  movement  by  the  great  mass 
of  the  Democracy,  to  the  fact  that  its  managers  were  among 
the  chief  supporters  of  Lincoln  and  his  party,  and  thus 
responsible  for  the  wrongs  of  the  past  five  years.  There 
fore  all  who  would  accept  the  situation  and,  even  yet,  avert 
the  natural  fruits  of  civil  war,  must  forget  the  past  and  make 
the  great  issue  of  the  hour  the  sole  test  of  present  fellowship 
and  cooperation.  Of  the  plan  to  exclude  him,  he  said : 

I  am  not  unaware  that  a  handful  of  mischievous  and  evil  dis 
posed  persons  of  the  Republican  party  now  among  the  pro 
fessed  friends  of  the  President,  but  themselves  of  peculiarly 
odious  and  unpatriotic  record  and  antecedents,  pretend  to  set 
up  tests  for  admission  to  the  Philadelphia  Convention  as  against 
certain  men,  in  fact  all  men  of  the  Democratic  party.  The 
combined  indecency,  presumption  and  folly  of  this  pretense, 
together  with  the  mingled  treachery  and  hypocrisy  of  the 
motives  which  prompt  it,  render  it  too  contemptible  for  fur 
ther  notice.1 

He  thought  that  if  the  convention  was  to  apply  any  other 
test  than  the  attitude  of  the  delegates  upon  the  one  great 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  2d. 


230  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [366 

issue  of  the  day  as  set  forth  in  the  call,  it  had  far  better  not 
assemble  at  all.  Considerable  annoyance  was  caused  by 
this  tirade,  and  steps  were  at  once  taken  to  keep  the  author 
quiet  at  Philadelphia.1 

About  two  hundred  delegates  assembled  on  August  7th 
in  convention  under  the  leadership  of  L.  D.  Campbell,  just 
appointed  minister  to  Mexico;  M.  P.  Gaddis  of  Cincinnati, 
assessor  of  the  second  district ;  L.  A.  Harris  and  J.  M.  Con- 
nell,  collectors  of  the  first  and  twelfth  districts  respectively ; 
and  J.  H.  Geiger,  a  former  Chase  man,  who  had  become 
dissatisfied  because  he  had  not  received  a  sufficiently  remun 
erative  office.  The  platform  approved  the  principles  set 
forth  in  the  call  for  the  national  convention,  and,  to  allay 
the  fears  of  the  Democrats,  opposed  any  union  with  any 
existing  party  as  a  party,  but  hoped  to  unite  at  the  polls 
with  all  men  who  were  in  favor  of  the  principles  and  objects 
of  the  call.  A  letter  written  by  Thomas  Ewing,  Sr.,  to 
O.  H.  Browning 2  under  date  of  August  2d  was  read 
before  the  convention,  and  its  sentiments  endorsed.  In  it 
the  writer  argued  that  one  part  of  Congress  could  not  keep 
the  other  part  out,  that  the  exclusion  of  states  as  states  for 
any  reason  was  a  violation  of  their  constitutional  privilege, 
and  that  laws  passed  by  such  a  part  of  Congress  were  of 
doubtful  constitutionality  and  might  be  thrown  out  by  the 
courts.3  As  delegates  at  large,  Ewing,  Campbell,  Stedman 

JJ.  H.  Geiger,  writing  to  Johnson  August  2nd  on  the  prospects  for 
the  coming  state  convention,  said  :  "  We  shall  have  an  active  energetic 
body  of  men  whose  souls  are  in  the  work.  We  are  hurt  more  by  the 
prominence  given  Vallandigham  than  by  all  other  causes.  Our  people 
shrink  from  contact  with  him,  he  must  be  kept  down  at  the  Philadel 
phia  Convention  or  we  shall  be  badly  crippled  in  Ohio.  The  fellow's 
doctrines  now  are  not  so  bad,  but  his  name  is  damnation."  Johnson 
Papers,  MS. 

*  Shortly  before,  appointed  Secretary  of  the  Interior  by  Johnson. 

*Ohio  Statesman,  August  8th. 


367]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  231 

and  Groesbeck  were  chosen,  and  a  full  set  of  district  dele 
gates  was  selected.  A  resolution  was  adopted  instructing 
the  central  committee  to  meet  later  to  consider  the  propriety 
of  nominating  a  state  ticket  for  the  National  Union  party. 

Ohio  was  therefore  represented  at  Philadelphia,  August 
1 4th,  by  a  full  quota  of  delegates  divided  equally  between 
the  Democrats  and  the  Johnson  Unionists.  The  opposition 
to  Vallandigham  and  to  Fernando  Wood,  who  had  been 
sent  as  a  delegate  from  New  York,  was  carried  to  the  floor 
of  the  convention.  Not  only  was  there  a  feeling  that  the 
presence  of  these  men  as  delegates  would  prevent  the  co 
operation  of  many  necessary  voters,  but  Vallandigham  was 
particularly  offensive  to  the  Union  delegation  from  Ohio 
because  of  his  war  record  and  his  recent  letter.  Wood 
withdrew  without  making  any  protest,  but  Vallandigham 
would  consent  to  give  up  his  seat  only  after  having  a  resolu 
tion  read  to  the  convention  which  had  been  adopted  by  the 
Ohio  Democratic  delegation  asserting  their  readiness  to 
stand  by  him,  and  while  endorsing  his  motives  and  fitness, 
consenting  to  his  withdrawal  for  the  sake  of  harmony.1 

In  the  convention  of  southern  loyalists  and  northern  sup 
porters  of  Congress,  held  at  Philadelphia,  September  3d, 
to  offset  the  Johnson  convention,2  Ohio  was  represented  by 
a  full  quota  of  four  delegates  from  each  congressional  dis 
trict  and  eight  delegates  at  large,  both  chosen  by  the  Union 
state  central  committee,  the  latter  including  Wade,  Den- 
nison  and  Stanley  Matthews. 

In  addition  to  these  activities,  the  state-sovereignty  men, 
notwithstanding  their  poor  showing  in  the  election  of  1865, 
held  a  state  convention  at  Cincinnati,  July  5th,  and  nomi- 

1  Vallandigham,  Life  of  Vallandigham,  p.  411.     Crisis,  August  22d. 
Also  Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  v,  p.  614. 
1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  v,  p.  621. 


232          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [368 

nated  a  state  ticket.  Their  platform  declared  against  merg 
ing  the  Democracy  and  Johnsonism,  and  demanded  the  im 
mediate  trial  of  Jefferson  Davis  on  the  merits  of  the  question 
whether  or  not  a  sovereign  state  had  the  right  to  secede. 
An  organ  of  the  party,  the  West  and  South,  was  established 
at  Cincinnati. 

During  the  period  in  which  these  various  conventions 
were  being  held,  congressional  and  local  conventions  were 
also  called.  In  all  the  districts  which  they  normally  con 
trolled  the  Unionists  nominated  supporters  of  Congress.  In 
all  the  districts  except  two,  the  Democrats  nominated  mem 
bers  of  their  own  party.  In  the  Dayton  district,  General 
Durbin  Ward,  a  Unionist  of  Democratic  antecedents,  was 
run  as  an  independent  candidate  against  General  Schenck, 
and  was  supported  by  the  Democrats,  while  in  the  Scioto 
county  district,  a  Johnson  candidate  received  their  support. 
In  the  local  conventions  the  tendency  was  for  the  Johnson 
men  and  the  Democrats  to  fuse  on  a  ticket. 

The  fight  in  the  campaign  was  made  on  the  congressional 
elections  and  the  issue  was  Johnsonism  against  the  Civil 
Rights  and  Freedmen's  Bureau  Acts  and  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  Governor  Cox,  in  his  opening  speech,  made 
a  strong  plea  for  harmony.  The  real  question  in  the  can 
vass  was,  he  considered,  whether  the  Union  party  after 
directing  the  policy  of  the  government  through  the  war  to 
a  glorious  result  should  destroy  itself.  In  every  political 
organization,  there  must  be  compromise  and  difference  of 
opinion  on  matters  of  detail.  He  could  see  no  fundamental 
question  upon  which  there  was  any  disagreement,  since  all 
the  members  of  the  party  agreed  that  some  terms  should  be 
imposed  on  the  southern  states.  There  was  an  apparent 
disagreement  on  the  sort  of  terms  to  be  imposed,  but,  he 
maintained,  the  terms  proposed  by  the  President  were  iden 
tical  with  those  for  which  the  Union  party  had  declared  in 


369]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  233 

its  convention.  The  only  real  difference  was  the  manner  of 
imposing  the  terms ;  Congress  would  do  it  by  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  the  President  would  do  it  otherwise. 
This  being  only  a  minor  matter,  there  was  no  reason  why 
all  the  elements  of  the  party  could  not  unite.1  This  speech 
was  much  above  the  average  campaign  address,  as  were 
those  of  all  the  speakers  throughout  the  campaign. 

To  aid  the  Union  cause,  a  delegation  of  twenty-eight 
southern  delegates,  on  their  way  from  the  Philadelphia  con 
vention  to  visit  the  tomb  of  Lincoln,  stopped  for  four  days 
and  made  addresses  in  different  parts  of  the  state.  General 
Butler  made  a  tour  through  several  counties,  speaking  on 
impartial  suffrage.  In  most  instances  the  Johnson  men  and 
Democrats  held  their  meetings  together.  The  President  on 
his  trip  "  swinging  round  the  circle,"  visited  Cleveland, 
where  his  experiences  were  very  unfortunate,  and  also 
stopped  at  Cincinnati  on  his  return  east.  Shortly  before  the 
election,  the  Democratic  executive  committee  issued  an  ad 
dress  declaring  that  the  real  question  at  issue  was  whether 
less  than  one-third  of  the  people  should  despotically  govern 
more  than  two-thirds,  and  reciting  what  it  considered  would 
be  the  results  of  radical  success  at  the  polls — civil  war,  the 
disfranchisement  of  white  men  and  the  confiscation  of  their 
property  as  well  as  other  dire  calamities.2  The  campaign 
in  Ohio  as  in  the  other  northern  states  was  quite  spirited 
and  the  appeal  was  made  rather  to  the  intellect  than  to  the 
emotions. 

At  the  election  the  Union  state  ticket  was  carried  by  a 
majority  of  43,000.  The  only  gain  made  by  the  Democrats 
was  one  congressional  district,  General  Morgan  being 
elected  over  Delano  with  a  change  of  about  five  hundred 
votes  in  the  district.  The  result  as  a  whole  was  a  rather 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  22d.  2  Crisis,  October  3d. 


234          OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [370 

painful  surprise  to  the  Democrats,  after  their  high  hopes 
of  the  early  part  of  the  year.  The  Crisis  considered  that  it 
was  due  to  the  folly  of  the  party  in  abandoning  the  original 
plan  of  campaign  and  saddling  itself  with  all  the  faults  of 
the  administration.  This  policy  gained  no  appreciable  num 
ber  of  votes  from  the  conservatives,  and  disgusted  many 
Democrats.1  The  Statesman  had  no  comment  to  make, 
while  the  Plain  Dealer  thought  the  result  came  from  the 
holding  together  of  the  ranks  of  the  Union  party  by  the 
argument  that  Johnson  was  a  traitor. 

The  radicals  were  unable  to  place  any  interpretation  on 
the  result  so  far  as  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  was  con 
cerned.  The  chairman  of  the  state  executive  committee, 
writing  to  Chase  on  this  subject,  said: 

It  is  very  difficult,  as  you  well  know,  in  Ohio,  with  her  great 
variety  of  people,  to  tell  with  any  degree  of  certainty  what  a 
majority  of  them  want  or  to  arrive  at  the  general  average  of 
their  political  conditions.  In  Ashtabula  our  party  is  almost  as 
different  from  that  part  of  it  in  Fairfield  as  the  whole  party  is 
from  the  Democracy,  and  upon  our  radical  views  the  two  coun 
ties  are  very  wide  apart.  ...  In  the  radical  counties  our  ma 
jorities  are  steadily  increasing,  while  our  conservative  coun 
ties  are  as  weak  as  they  were  ten  years  ago,  simply  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  latter  the  difference  between  the  two  parties 
is  so  slight  that  there  is  but  little  choice  for  earnest  men  be 
tween  them.  In  the  Reserve  counties  some  of  our  speakers 
have  openly  advocated  impartial  suffrage,  while  in  other  places 
it  was  thought  necessary  not  only  to  repudiate  it,  but  to  oppose 
it.  ...  My  own  opinion  is  that  we  made  a  mistake  in  not  de 
claring  for  impartial  suffrage  a  year  ago.  Now  I  fear  it  is 
too  late  to  do  so  and  carry  the  elections  in  1868,  for  we  must 
suffer  losses  and  probably  defeats  for  one  or  two  years  by 
such  a  course.2 

1  Crisis,  October  26th. 

*  MS.  Letter  of  October  12,  1866.     Chase  Papers. 


371  ]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  235 

The  election  over,  the  alliance  between  the  Johnson  men 
and  the  Democrats  was  dissolved.  However,  many  of  the 
Democrats  who  joined  the  Union  organization  in  1861  re 
turned  to  their  original  party  affiliations  through  this  move 
ment,  and  thus  placed  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  more 
extreme  policies  of  the  Unionists  the  next  year. 

NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  DEFEATED 

The  year  1867  saw  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  brought 
to  a  direct  issue  in  Ohio  politics.  The  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment,  designed  to  make  the  negro  a  citizen  and  to  cut  down 
the  representation  in  Congress  of  those  states  which  de 
prived  him  of  the  franchise,  was  before  the  state  for  rati 
fication,  and  the  proposition  to  amend  the  state  Constitution, 
which  the  Union  party  had  dodged  in  the  preceding  year, 
could  no  longer  be  postponed. 

When  the  General  Assembly  met  for  its  adjourned  ses 
sion  on  January  2d,  these  matters  were  facing  it.  The 
Constitutional  Amendment  was  promptly  ratified  by  a  joint 
resolution  which  passed  the  Senate  on  the  second  day  by 
a  strict  party  vote,  and  was  carried  in  the  House  on  the  next 
day  with  eighteen  Unionists  from  the  conservative  counties 
absent.1  A  few  days  later  the  House  adopted  a  resolution 
thanking  Congress  for  passing  over  the  President's  veto  the 
bill  giving  the  franchise  to  the  negroes  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,2  but  the  Senate  tabled  it.  When  Congress  passed 
its  first  reconstruction  act,  March  2d,  dividing  the  southern 
states  into  military  districts  and  prescribing  negro  suffrage 
as  a  condition  precedent  to  their  being  restored  to  their 
normal  relations  with  the  Union,  a  resolution  of  endorse 
ment  was  proposed  in  the  House.  It  was  kept  in  suspense 
until  the  last  day  of  the  session,  when  it  was  tabled. 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixiv,  p.  320. 
-  House  Journal ',  1867,  p.  39. 


236  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [372 

On  the  question  of  amending  the  state  Constitution,  the 
contest  raged  throughout  the  session.  Frequent  caucuses  of 
the  Unionists  were  held  in  an  attempt  to  get  the  members 
of  the  party  together  on  the  matter,  but  with  little  success. 
On  January  i/th  a  resolution  was  offered  in  the  House  by 
one  of  the  conservative  members  proposing  an  amendment 
bestowing  the  suffrage  on  every  male  citizen  of  the  United 
States  resident  in  the  state  who  had  never  engaged  in  re 
bellion  against  the  government  and  who  could  read  the  state 
Constitution  and  write  his  own  name.1  Some  days  later 
another  proposition  which  had  been  offered  by  the  conser 
vatives  in  the  first  session,  was  revived.  It  was  designed  to 
enfranchise  all  citizens  except  "  such  persons  as  have  been 
engaged  in  arms  against  the  United  States  or  who  have  left 
their  place  of  residence  to  avoid  being  drafted  into  the  mili 
tary  service  of  the  United  States."  Both  of  these  propo 
sitions  were  tabled,  but  when  on  February  26th,  a  resolution 
to  strike  the  word  "  white  "  from  the  Constitution,  which 
had  been  postponed  from  the  preceding  session,  came  up  for 
discussion,  they  were  offered  as  amendments.  The  Demo 
crats  and  radicals  combined  to  defeat  them,  and  on  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  itself  the  vote  stood  thirty-nine  to 
fifty.  The  members  from  the  Reserve  together  with  those 
from  the  counties  bordering  it  on  the  south  and  from 
Lucas,  Union  and  Gallia  voted  in  the  affirmative,  while  the 
Democrats  and  conservative  Unionists  voted  solidly  in  the 
negative.3  These  votes  showed  the  attitude  of  the  various 
factions  at  the  time:  The  radical  Unionists  were  for  a 
straight  suffrage  amendment;  the  conservative  Unionists 
were  ready  to  vote  for  negro  suffrage,  provided  they  could, 
at  the  same  time,  disfranchise  as  many  Peace  Democrats  as 
possible;  the  Democrats  were  flatly  against  any  change. 

1  House  Journal,  1867,  p.  59.  *Ibid.,  p.  132. 

3 Ibid.,  p.  273. 


373]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  237 

During  the  discussion  and  the  balloting  there  was  much 
excitement  in  the  Hall  of  Representatives.  The  governor 
and  most  of  the  higher  state  officers  were  present,  while  the 
galleries  were  filled  with  friends  of  the  amendment  Various 
reasons  were  given  in  the  debate  for  the  adverse  votes. 
Some  members  held  that  they  had  been  elected  two  years 
before,  when  the  question  was  not  an  issue,  and  hence 
were  not  in  a  position  to  support  it;  others  came  from  con 
stituencies  which  were  directly  opposed  to  it.  Some  were 
afraid  lest  a  vote  in  favor  of  the  enactment  might  mean 
the  defeat  of  their  county  ticket.  Many  sought  to  relieve 
the  situation  by  having  the  matter  postponed,  until  the 
regular  time  for  revising  the  Constitution.1  There  was 
much  disappointment  felt  by  the  radical  element  at  this 
action  of  the  House,  and  much  criticism  was  heaped  upon 
those  members  who  had  voted  approval  of  the  act  of  Con 
gress  by  which  universal  suffrage  was  granted  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  and  yet,  had  not  dared  to  vote  for  a  reso 
lution  which  simply  gave  the  people  the  right  to  say  whether 
or  not  they  favored  the  proposition  in  the  stale.  However, 
an  attempt  to  reconsider  the  vote  failed. 

On  the  next  day,  February  27th,  the  Senate  took  up  a 
resolution  providing  for  universal  suffrage  which  it  had 
postponed  during  the  previous  session,  and,  after  a  month 
of  debate,  passed  it  by  the  necessary  three-fifths  vote.2  In 
the  House  twenty-six  Unionists  still  held  out,  and  their 
support  could  be  gained  only  by  adding  an  amendment  to 
the  Senate  resolution  disfranchising  those  who  had 

borne  arms  in  support  of  any  insurrection  or  rebellion  against 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  have  fled  from  their 
places  of  residence  to  avoid  being  drafted  into  the  military  ser- 

1  1871.     Article  xvi,  section  3,  of  the  Constitution. 
*  March  27th.     Senate  Journal,  1867,  p.  411. 


238          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [374 

vice  thereof,  or  have  deserted  the  military  service  of  said  Gov 
ernment  in  time  of  war  and  have  not  subsequently  been  hon 
orably  discharged  from  the  same. 

The  Senate  struck  out  the  clause  disfranchising  deserters, 
but  the  House  refused  to  agree.  In  order  to  fulfill  the  con 
stitutional  requirement  of  having  a  proposed  amendment 
published  for  six  months  before  the  election  at  which  it  was 
to  be  voted  on,  it  was  necessary  to  come  to  some  agreement 
before  April  8th,  and  after  a  committee  of  conference  had 
failed  to  adjust  the  differences,  the  Senate  receded  from  its 
position  and  allowed  the  House  amendment  to  pass. 

The  House  sought,  by  disfranchising  as  many  of  the 
Peace  Democrats  as  possible,  to  gain  popularity  for  the 
measure  in  doubtful  counties  and  especially  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  state.  It  was  soon  realized,  however,  that  the 
deserters  clause  would  have  a  serious  effect  on  the  Union 
party.  It  was  found  that  there  was  a  total  of  27,178  de 
serters  credited  to  Ohio,  about  one-fourth  of  whom  had 
deserted  after  Lee's  surrender,  fearing  that  they  might 
be  sent  to  the  Mexican  border  or  the  Indian  frontier  to 
serve  out  the  remainder  of  their  three-years  enlistment.  In 
order  to  remove  the  ban  from  these,  the  House  adopted  a 
resolution  soliciting  the  good  offices  of  the  Ohio  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress  to  have  a  law  passed  re 
quiring  the  secretary  of  war  to  issue  honorable  discharges 
to  all  who  had  left  after  April  15,  1865,  but  the  Senate  re 
fused  to  assist  in  freeing  the  House  from  the  dilemma. 

The  spring  elections  came  just  before  the  legislature 
passed  the  resolution,  and  the  Democratic  press  made  negro 
suffrage  the  issue.  The  result  was  a  reduction  of  the  Union 
majorities  in  many  places,  and  this  was  interpreted  as  a  re 
pudiation  of  the  proposition. 

The  Democrats  had  already  held  their  state  convention 


375]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  239 

on  January  8th,  Jackson  day,  this  date  being  fixed  upon  as 
a  fitting  time  to  restore  the  party  to  its  original  principles. 
The  conservative  element  was  in  disfavor  because  of  their 
carrying  the  organization  into  Johnsonism,  and  the  pro 
ceedings  were  entirely  dominated  by  Thurman,  Vallandig- 
ham  and  Pendleton.  This  triumvirate  proceeded  to  make 
a  division  of  the  political  spoils  among  themselves.  Thur 
man  was  to  have  the  nomination  for  governor;  Pendleton, 
the  endorsement  of  the  party  for  the  Presidential  nomina 
tion  in  1868;  while  Vallandigham,  in  case  the  legislative 
elections  could  be  carried  in  the  fall,  was  to  be  sent  to  the 
Senate  to  succeed  Wade. 

With  this  agreement  in  mind,  these  leaders  took  charge 
of  the  convention.  Pendleton  presided  over  the  sessions, 
and  Vallandigham  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  reso 
lutions.  No  military  men  were  prominent;  the  prevailing 
atmosphere  was  much  like  that  of  the  convention  of  1863. 
The  platform  reaffirmed  the  old  doctrines  of  limited  powers 
and  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution.  The  recon 
struction  measures  then  before  Congress,  were  held  to  be 
"  unconstitutional,  revolutionary,  and  despotic."  Negro 
suffrage,  it  was  declared,  would  be  productive  of  evil,  and 
would  "  tend  to  produce  a  disastrous  conflict  of  races." 
Cory  attempted  to  add  the  first  Kentucky  resolution  of 
1799  containing  the  idea  of  state  veto;  his  plan  was  to 
stimulate  the  authorities  of  Kentucky,  where  the  Democrats 
were  in  power,  to  call  a  convention  to  nullify  the  reconstruc 
tion  legislation.  According  to  the  program,  Thurman  was 
nominated  for  governor,  with  the  duty  of  releasing  the  state 
"  from  the  thraldom  of  niggerism." 

After  the  suffrage  amendment  had  been  passed  by  the 
legislature,  the  Democratic  central  committee,  taking  ad 
vantage  of  the  blunder  which  had  been  made,  issued  an  ad 
dress  calling  for  the  support 


240  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [376 

of  every  man  who  is  opposed  to  the  establishment  of  an  equal 
ity  of  the  white  and  black  races  in  the  State,  and  to  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  those  soldiers  who  did  faithful  service 
throughout  the  actual  continuance  of  the  war,  but  who  returned 
home  before  receiving  an  official  discharge.1 

The  state-sovereignty  Democracy  proceeded  on  its  own 
account  to  agitate  the  remedy  of  state  veto.  At  a  meeting 
held  on  February  nth,  resolutions  were  adopted  calling  on 
the  people  of  Kentucky  to  provide  at  once  for  a  convention 
with  authority  to  veto  any  law  of  Congress  which  violated 
the  Federal  Constitution  by  giving  ballots  or  bayonets  to 
negroes  within  her  limits.  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
memorialize  the  Kentucky  legislature  on  the  matter.  The 
formation  of  state-sovereignty  societies,  in  every  congres 
sional  district  of  the  various  states,  was  urged,  "  to  educate 
our  deplorably  ignorant  political  leaders  in  the  true  knowl 
edge  of  our  sacred  and  most  glorious  institutions,  now  so 
outrageously  abused  everywhere,  and  menaced  with  total 
overthrow."  A  national  convention  attended  by  delegates 
from  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa  and  Alabama 
was  held  at  Cincinnati  on  April  I3th.2 

During  the  early  part  of  the  year,  the  Unionists  were 
much  at  sea  on  the  question  of  a  suitable  candidate,  who 
could  stand  squarely  on  a  negro  suffrage  platform  and,  at 
the  same  time,  command  the  support  of  the  conservative 
element.  Cox,  realizing  that  he  could  not  measure  up  to  the 
standard,  declined  to  be  a  candidate  for  renomination.3  The 
Cleveland  Leader,  while  regretting  the  loss  of  so  good  a 
governor,  was  willing  to  sacrifice  him  because  he  was  not 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  April  22d. 

2  The  proceedings  were  all  published  in  the  West  and  South.     Sec 
also  the  Crisis,  May  ist. 

3  Letter  to  state  central  committee,  Cleveland  Leader,  Jan.  26th. 


377]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  241 

in  accord  with  the  party  on  the  great  issue  of  the  day  and 
had  been  indiscreet  enough  in  his  Oberlin  letter  and  in  his 
eulogy  of  Johnson  to  make  that  want  of  harmony  promi 
nent.1  Later  on,  it  was  suggested  that  he  reconsider  his 
decision,  and  for  some  weeks  his  record  on  negro  suffrage 
formed  the  subject  of  serious  discussion  in  the  press. 

Other  names  suggested  were  those  of  Schenck,  Garfield, 
Dennison,  General  Keifer,  who  had  the  support  of  the  G. 
A.  R. ;  B.  R.  Cowan,  chairman  of  the  state  central  com 
mittee;  General  Hayes,  and  Galloway.  By  the  time  set  for 
holding  the  convention,  June  iQth,  sentiment  was  crystalized 
around  Hayes  as  the  most  available  candidate.  He  had  a 
good  war  record,  and  at  this  time  was  representing  the  sec 
ond  district  in  Congress.  No  objections  were  offered  to 
him  by  any  faction  of  the  party,  except  that  the  Wool 
Growers'  Association  complained  of  his  attitude  in  Con 
gress  toward  the  tariff  on  wool.2 

Regarding  a  platform,  the  radical  element  stood  uncom 
promisingly  on  the  two  propositions :  equal  suffrage  in  the 
South  as  provided  by  the  reconstruction  acts;  and  negro 
suffrage  in  Ohio  as  proposed  by  the  constitutional  amend 
ment.3  Governor  Tod  was  solicited  for  an  opinion.  In 
response  to  resolutions  of  the  Union  convention  of  Cuya- 
ra  county  approving  the  acts  of  his  administration,  he 

4c  the  opportunity  "  to  express  the  hope  that  the  Union 

y,  formed  in  1861,  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  will  not 

iisband.     Its  work  is  not  yet  finished  .   .   .  the  poor 

made  free  by  the  rebellion  must  be  protected  and  cared 

by  the  Government.  .  .  .  The  Union  party  is  in  honor 

to  see  to  this."    He  was  ready  to  approve  the  recon- 

rial,  January  2;th. 

omplaint  was  made  through  the  Plainsville  Telegraph. 

ial,  Cleveland  Leader,  June  nth. 


242  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [378 

struction  measures  of  Congress  as  providing  "  all  that  is 
required  to  secure  to  the  African  race  prosperity  and  hap 
piness/'  and  to  endorse  the  action  of  the  legislature  on  the 
matter  of  negro  suffrage  in  the  state.1 

When  the  convention  met,  an  attempt  was  made  by  the 
Chase  men  to  bring  the  Presidential  question  into  the  pro 
ceedings,  by  urging  the  nomination  of  Schenck,  as  an  en 
dorsement  o>f  Chase  against  Hayes,  who  was  a  Grant  man.2 
The  plan  failed,  however,  and  on  the  first  ballot  Hayes  re 
ceived  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  votes  as  against  two 
hundred  and  eight  for  Galloway  and  a  few  scattering  votes 
for  the  other  candidates. 

The  platform  endorsed  the  reconstruction  measures  of 
Congress  and  placed  the  party  "  on  the  simple  and  broad 
platform  of  impartial  manhood  suffrage,  as  embodied  in  the 
proposed  amendment  to  the  state  Constitution,  appealing 
to  and  confiding  in  the  intelligence,  justice  and  patriotism 
of  the  people  of  Ohio  to  approve  it  at  the  ballot  box."  No 
mention  was  made  of  the  deserters  clause,  which  by  this 
time  was  causing  the  party  much  embarrassment.  After  a 
heated  discussion  in  the  committee,  it  was  decided  simply  to 
endorse  the  suffrage  part  of  the  amendment. 

There  seemed  to  be  almost  unanimous  approval  of  the 
work  of  the  convention  among  the  radical  element.  Even 
the  Portage  County  Democrat  was  enthusiastic  over  both 
the  candidate  and  the  platform.3  The  Wool  Growers'  Asso 
ciation  held  a  meeting  in  Cleveland,  July  4th,  and  decided 
to  take  no  action  on  the  election  for  governor,  but  to  use 
all  its  energy  in  the  election  of  a  state  legislature  which 
would  send  a  sound  tariff  man  to  the  United  States  Sen- 

1  Cleveland  Leader,  June  25th.     The  letter  was  written  June  i8th. 

2  "  Mack  "  in  the  Cincinnati  Commercial,  June  21  st. 

3  Editorial,  June  26th. 


379]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  243 

ate.  The  only  expression  of  disapproval  came  from  Gallo 
way,  who  was  much  disappointed  over  his  failure  to  secure 
the  nomination  for  governor.  He  was  given  second  place 
on  the  ticket,  but  declined  it  in  an  open  letter  in  which  he 
attributed  his  defeat  to  the  fact  that  he  would  enter  into  no 
intrigues  with  Presidential  aspirants.1 

The  heavy  weight  of  the  deserters  clause  was  partially  re 
moved  by  an  act  dubbed  by  the  press  "  The  Ohio  Deser 
ters  Bill  ",  which  was  hurried  through  Congress,  July  I7th, 
by  Ashley  of  the  Toledo  district.  It  provided  that  no  soldier 
or  sailor  should  be  considered  a  deserter  who  left  his  com 
mand  after  April  19,  1865,  without  authority.  It  was  not, 
however,  to  act  as  a  remission  of  forfeiture  of  pay,  bounty 
or  pension,  but  solely  as  a  removal  of  any  disability  such 
a  soldier  or  sailor  might  have  incurred  by  the  loss  of  his 
citizenship  in  consequence  of  his  desertion.2 

In  the  local  conventions  the  suffrage  question  caused 
some  serious  contests,  and  in  many  of  the  southern  counties 
no  endorsement  was  given  to  the  amendment.  The  Brown 
county  convention  resolved  that  the  matter  should  not  be 
made  a  party  question,  but  left  for  Union  men  to  vote  upon 
as  they  might  choose,  without  prejudicing  their  standing  in 
the  party.  The  burden  of  supporting  the  proposition  was 
to  be  left  with  the  radicals. 

Both  parties  opened  their  campaign  on  August  5th,  and 

for  two  months  carried  on  a  contest  which  for  enthusiasm 

intensity  compared  very  favorably  with  that  of  1863. 

-al  Hayes  in  his  opening  speech  dwelt  on  the  efforts 

I  Union  party  to  preserve  nationality,  in  contrast  to  the 

'ination  of  the  Democracy  to  destroy  it.    At  the  open- 

the  war,  he  said,  the  creed  of  the  Union  party  had 

Statesman,  July  4th. 
Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xv,  p.  14. 


244          OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR        [380 

been  simply,  "  the  restoration  of  the  Union."  Gradually  the 
party  had  realized  that  slavery  and  rebellion  were  convertible 
terms,  and  that  liberty  and  union  were  inseparable.  The 
Peace  Democracy,  at  first  overwhelmed  by  the  popular  up 
rising  which  followed  Sumter,  was  able,  after  its  success 
in  1862,  to  mark  out  a  path  of  opposition  to  the  war  meas 
ures,  to  Lincoln's  administration,  and  in  particular  to  every 
measure  tending  to  the  enfranchisement  and  elevation  of 
the  African  race.  On  reconstruction,  Hayes  argued,  the 
parties  differed  in  the  same  way.  The  Democracy  opposed 
the  placing  of  any  condition  upon  the  restoration  of  the 
southern  states,  while  the  Union  party  held  the  military  re 
construction  measures  and  the  Constitutional  Amendment 
to  be  the  only  means  of  accomplishing  what  all  people  most 
desired,  the  reestablishment  of  constitutional  government  in 
the  South.  The  assertion  that  the  government  was  a  white 
man's  government  he  denied.  "  It  is  not  the  Government  of 
any  class  or  sect  or  nationality  or  race.  ...  It  is  not  the 
Government  of  the  native  born  or  of  the  foreign  born,  of  the 
rich  man  or  of  the  poor  man,  of  the  white  man  or  of  the 
colored  man — it  is  the  Government  of  the  freeman."  The 
"  monstrous  inconsistency  and  injustice  of  excluding  one- 
seventh  of  our  population  from  all  participation  in  a  Gov 
ernment  founded  on  the  consent  of  the  governed  "  was  held 
to  be  impossible.  There  was  no  necessary  antagonism  be 
tween  the  two  races  which  could  not  be  broken  down  by 
justice  and  equality.1 

Thurman,  in  his  opening  speech,  made  a  powerful  attack 
on  the  policy  of  the  Union  party  in  changing  the  country 
from  a  constitutional  government  to  a  despotism  in  which 
the  Constitution  was  set  at  naught.  "  Indeed,"  he  said,  "  it 
is  but  truth  to  assert  that  there  is  scarcely  a  provision  01  the 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  6th. 


381]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  245 

Constitution  that  has  notz  within  the  last  six  years,  been 
shamelessly  and  needlessly  trampled  under  foot  and  that  is 
not  at  this  day  yet  more  shamelessly  and  more  needlessly 
violated."  The  radicals,  he  contended,  had  no  respect  for 
anything  but  their  own  ungoverned  will  and  insatiate  lust 
for  power  and  plunder.  "  It  was  owing  to  the  machina 
tions  of  this  faction  that  disunion  and  civil  war  were  not 
peaceably  averted;  it  was  to  their  machinations  that  we  owe 
the  prolongation  of  the  war  two  years  longer  than  it  would 
otherwise  have  lasted."  This  party  was  demanding  that  the 
white  race,  to  whom  the  country  owed  everything,  should 
become  subordinate  to  the  negro.  "  We  have  this  proposi 
tion  before  us  in  Ohio,  to  confer  the  vote  on  seven  or  eight 
thousand  blacks  and  mulattoes  and  to  take  it  away  from 
about  three  times  as  many  white  soldiers."  He  did  not 
believe  the  negro  capable  of  self-government,  and  as  a  proof 
cited  the  evils  of  negro  equality  in  Mexico  and  Jamaica. 
The  serious  financial  burdens  of  the  war  were  also  dis 
cussed,  especially  the  increased  taxation  resulting  from  the 
maintenance  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  military  re 
construction.1 

This  attack  threw  the  Unionists  on  the  defensive  for  a 

ti^^.2    With  the  burden  resting  upon  them  of  showing  that 

artial  suffrage  would  be  best  for  the  country,  they  were 

called  upon,  as  the  campaign  progressed,  to  defend 

selves  against  the  charges  of  partisan  violence,  corrup- 

in  financial  matters,  and  the  selfish  motive  of  conferring 

'dnnati  Commercial,  August  6th. 

/•es  was  criticised  by  members  of  his  party  for  taking  the  defensive. 

ver  to  a  suggestion,  he  wrote,  September  ist:  "  My  own  notion 

't  in  replying  to  Thurman  as  I  did  I  was  making  the  Copperhead 

i  main  topic  which  I  knew  was  our  victory.     But  the  form  of 

ission  was  as  you  say  defensive.     In  deference  to  such  criticism 

>peat,  I  have  changed  all  that  and  say  the  same  things  now  in 

ssive  form."     MS.  Letter. 


246  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [382 

suffrage  on  the  negro  in  order  to  maintain  themselves  in 
power.  One  of  their  strongest  arguments  was  the  incon 
sistency  of  forcing  negro  suffrage  upon  the  South,  and  re 
fusing  to  accept  it  at  home.  They  became  much  confused 
in  claiming  that  the  right  to  vote  was  a  natural  right  of 
which  the  colored  people  were  being  unjustly  deprived.  In 
urging  the  discarding  of  past  issues  and  the  discussion  of 
those  only  with  which  the  people  must  deal  in  the  future, 
Vallandigham  and  Thurman  laid  themselves  open  to  the 
charge  that  they  were  anxious  to  forget  the  past.  To  keep 
it  before  the  people,  the  Unionists  circulated  throughout  the 
state  a  pamphlet  entitled  "  The  War  Record  of  the  Ohio 
Democracy  "  made  up  of  excerpts  from  Democratic  speeches 
and  platforms  and  newspaper  articles  of  the  war  period. 
The  people  were  thus  called  upon  to  decide  between  approv 
ing  the  past  record  of  the  Democrats  and  endorsing  negro 
suffrage. 

The  campaign  aroused  a  national  interest  little  less  in 
tense  than  that  of  1863.  The  leaders  on  the  Democratic  side 
were  of  course  Thurman,  Vallandigham  and  Pendleton, 
ably  assisted  by  Ranney,  Jewett,  General  Durbin  Ward,  and 
many  others  of  lesser  prominence.  Voorhees  came  in  from 
Indiana  for  a  few  speeches,  but  for  the  most  part  the  Demo 
crats  of  the  state  conducted  their  own  fight.  The  Unionists, 
in  addition  to  their  own  leaders,  Hayes,  Sherman,  Wade, 
Tod,  Dennison  and  Cox,  enlisted  many  speakers  from 
abroad.  Morton,  Julian,  Colfax,  General  Washburn,  and 
Governor  Baker  came  from  Indiana;  John  A.  Logan,  from 
Illinois;  Senator  Chandler,  from  Michigan;  and  Governor 
Harriman,  from  New  Hampshire. 

During  the  course  of  the  contest,  Wade  made  two  speeches 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  state,  one  at  Marietta  and  the 
other  at  Portsmouth,  in  which  he  entered  into  a  most  viru 
lent  tirade  against  the  Democracy.  The  party,  he  said,  was 


383]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  247 

not  only  dead  but  damned  through  the  sin  of  treason.  They 
had  put  in  nomination  in  1863  a  traitor — one  who  had  been 
convicted  of  treason  and  who  ought  to  have  been  hung. 
Their  opposition  to  negro  suffrage  was  all  an  appeal  to 
prejudice;  they  considered  the  negro  too  ignorant  to  vote, 
but  they  could  not  make  intelligence  a  test,  because  that 
would  disfranchise  three-fourths  of  the  men  who  carried  the 
elections  in  the  Democratic  city  of  New  York.  Did  any 
one,  he  asked,  ever  know  a  negro  who  was  a  traitor;  did 
anyone  ever  know  a  Democrat  who  was  not  a  traitor  in 
practice  whatever  he  might  have  thought  about  it?1  This 
was  too  much  for  the  conservatives  of  the  southern  counties, 
and  did  much  to  injure  the  Union  party  in  that  section. 
As  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  expressed  it :  "  His  unmeas 
ured,  if  not  inconsiderate,  vituperation  is  ill  calculated  to 
serve  a  good  cause." 

Both  parties  made  an  exhaustive  canvass  of  the  state,  the 
opposing  candidates  for  governor  speaking  in  nearly  every 
county.     The  meetings  were  largely  attended  and  enthu 
siastic,  in  numbers,  falling  little  short  of  those  of  the  cam 
paign  of  1863.     Conspicuous  in  the  Democratic  processions 
were  wagons  filled  with  young  girls,  dressed  in  white,  carry 
ing  banners  inscribed  with  the  appeal :  "  Fathers,  save  us 
from  negro  equality."     The  principal  contest  was  made  on 
the  legislative  ticket,  and  in  the  interest  of  his  candidacy  for 
the  Senate,  Vallandigham  made  a  vigorous  effort  to  secure 
election    of    a    majority    of    Democratic    members. 
Dughout  the  campaign,  General  Hayes  conducted  him- 
in  a  dignified  manner,  making  no  effort  to  dodge  the 
ige  question,  but  arguing  on  the  ground  of  justice,  for 
franchisement  of  the  colored  man. 
Phi*  result  of  the  election  showed  in  no  uncertain  way 

1  Cincinnati  Commercial,  August  26th. 


248  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [-584 

the  attitude  of  the  people  of  the  state  on  the  question  at 
issue.  With  an  increase  in  the  total  vote  over  the  election 
of  1865  of  67,000,  Hayes'  majority  was  only  2,983.  The 
vote  on  the  Amendment  was  12,000  less  than  that  for  gov 
ernor,  and  the  direct  majority  against  it  was  38,000.  Con 
sidering  those  not  voting  as  being  against  it,  the  majority 
was  50,000.  Even  the  Reserve,  which  gave  Hayes  a  ma 
jority  of  21,000,  gave  5,000  less  for  the  amendment.  The 
Democrats  carried  both  branches  of  the  legislature. 

There  were  many  charges  of  negro  voting  in  several  parts 
of  the  state,  particularly  in  Greene  and  Fayette  counties  and 
on  the  Reserve.  The  Democratic  press  estimated  that  no 
less  than  three  thousand  mulattoes  and  negroes  had  voted  in 
the  election.  Regarding  the  cause  of  the  defeat,  there  was 
much  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Unionists.  The  dis 
franchising  clause,  the  strong  argument  of  the  Democrats 
against  the  heavy  taxation  caused  by  the  reconstruction 
measures,  the  proposition  to  pay  the  bonds  of  the  United 
States  in  greenbacks  which  Pendleton  injected  into  the  cam 
paign,  and  the  violence  of  Senator  Wade  in  his  speeches, 
were  all  given  as  reasons.  There  was  no  possibility  of  deny 
ing  that  the  amendment  had  been  defeated  by  direct  nega 
tive  votes,  and  not  by  the  failure  of  any  considerable  num 
ber  of  people  to  cast  a  ballot  on  the  subject.  To  the  Demo 
crats,  the  election  meant  a  distinct  repudiation  of  the  propo 
sition  of  negro  suffrage  in  all  its  aspects,  and  it  was  on  this 
interpretation  that  they  proceeded  to  undo  all  the  work  of 
the  Unionists  directed  toward  it. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  new  legislature  in 
January,  1868,  joint  resolutions  were  introduced  in  both 
branches  for  rescinding  the  ratification  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  which  was  still  before  the  states.  The  House 
resolution  gave  as  reasons  for  this  action,  that  the  provisions 
of  the  Amendment  were  ex  post  facto,  and  would  confer 


ELECTION  fa  GOVERNOR, 
1867 

Unionist  Counties  Shaded 
Democratic  Counties  Unshaded 


385]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  249 

upon  Congress  power  to  legislate  on  subjects  foreign  to  the 
original  objects  of  the  Federal  compact;  that  it  would  en 
force  negro  suffrage  and  negro  political  equality  in  the  state; 
and  that  it  was  a  misrepresentation  of  the  public  sentiment 
of  the  people  of  Ohio  and  contrary  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  white  race.  It  requested  the  President  to  cause  to  be 
returned  to  the  governor  all  papers  on  file  in  the  Executive 
Department  certifying  the  ratification  by  the  state  legisla 
ture.1  The  Senate  resolution  recited  in  the  preamble  the 
right  of  each  state  to  withdraw  its  assent  to  any  proposed 
amendment  at  any  time  before  ratification  by  three-fourths 
of  the  states  should  have  been  completed,  and  provided  that 
copies  of  the  rescinding  resolution  be  sent  to  the  President, 
to  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Ohio,  and  to  the 
governors  of  all  the  states,  and  that  the  President  and  the 
presiding  officers  of  both  branches  of  Congress  be  requested 
to  return  all  papers  certifying  the  ratification  of  the  Amend 
ment.2  It  was  practically  in  this  form  that  the  resolution 
passed  both  houses,  January  I5th,3  the  Senate  hurrying  it 
through,  under  the  previous  question,  with  such  haste  that 
a  protest  was  registered  by  the  Union  senators.4  The 
Democrats  justified  their  action  on  the  ground  that  the 
Unionists  were  attempting  to  postpone  a  vote  until  Con 
gress  had  declared  the  Amendment  part  of  the  Constitution. 
Some  delay  was  experienced  in  getting  the  resolution 
forwarded.  A  week  after  it  had  been  adopted,  it  was  found 
*uat  the  governor  had  done  nothing  in  the  matter,  and  a 
te  of  inquiry  was  sent  to  him  asking  the  cause.  Hayes 
>lained  the  delay  by  saying  that  the  resolution  did  not  ex- 

Touse  Journal,  1868,  p.  10. 
nate  Journal,  1868,  p.  7. 
'-..<-ws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixv,  p.  280. 
''•••f.'-o  State  Journal,  January  I5th. 


250  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [386 

pressly  request  the  governor  to  transmit  it,  and  hence  the 
secretary  of  state  did  not  deem  it  his  duty  to  send  copies  to 
the  executive  office  for  transmission.  A  further  resolution 
was  then  adopted  specifically  requesting  that  copies  be  sent.1 
A  reply  was  received  from  Secretary  of  State  Seward  stat 
ing  that  there  was  no  law  permitting  him  to  withdraw  any 
document  committed  to  the  Department  either  at  the  re 
quest  of  an  individual  or  a  state.  The  resolution  ratifying 
the  Amendment  and  that  rescinding  it  would  remain  in  the 
files  of  the  Department,  he  said,  "  and  have  such  effect 
as  they  may  respectively  be  entitled  to."  2 

For  their  action  the  Democrats  had  two  arguments  of 
considerable  weight.  In  the  first  place  the  Unionists  had 
set  a  precedent  in  rescinding  the  ratification  of  the  Corwin 
Amendment  of  i864,3  and  secondly  the  rejection  of  the 
amendment  to  the  state  Constitution  in  the  election  fur 
nished  conclusive  proof  that  the  people  of  the  state  were  op 
posed  to  the  principle  of  negro  suffrage.  The  rescinding 
resolution  went  for  nothing,  however,  as  did  a  similar  one 
adopted  by  the  New  Jersey  legislature.  In  his  first  certifi 
cate  of  ratification,  July  20,  1868,  Secretary  Seward  stated 
that  if  the  ratifying  resolutions  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey 
were  to  be  considered  as  remaining  in  full  force,  then  the 
Amendment  had  been  ratified  by  the  requisite  number  of 
states.4  On  the  next  day  a  concurrent  resolution  was  passed 
by  Congress  declaring  the  Amendment  to  be  part  of  the 
Constitution,  the  two  states  being  counted  among  those 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixv,  p.  283. 

2 Plain  Dealer,  February  I3th.  For  a  discussion  of  the  action  of  the 
various  states  on  the  Amendment,  see  Flack,  Adoption  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment,  chapter  iv. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  122. 

4McPherson,  History  of  Reconstruction,  p.  379. 


387]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  251 

having  ratified  it.1  In  accordance  with  this  action,  the  Sec 
retary  issued  a  final  proclamation  on  July  28th,  declaring  the 
Amendment  duly  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  states  and 
a  part  of  the  fundamental  law.2 

The  charges  of  illegal  voting  at  the  election  of  1867  were 
taken  up  for  investigation  by  the  new  legislature,  and  meas 
ures  were  adopted  to  prevent  its  repetition  in  the  future. 
In  the  eighth  senatorial  district 3  where  the  election  was  con 
tested,    the   Democratic   candidate   claimed   that   forty-two 
votes  were  cast  by  persons  "  having  a  distinct  and  visible- 
mixture   of   African   blood."     The    Senate   committee   on 
elections  in  awarding  the  seat  to  him  held  that  "  the  word 
white  means  pure  white,  unmixed,  and,  in  the  language  of 
the   Constitution   and   in    popular   language,    excludes   the 
whole  African  race,   whatever  may  be  the  admixture  of 
African  blood."  4    For  the  first  time  in  a  decade  it  was  pos 
sible  again  to  give  this  interpretation  the  authority  of  legis 
lative  expression,  and  following  the  committee's  report,  a 
bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  providing  for  the  reenact- 
ing  of  the  "  Visible  Admixture  law."     After  having  been 
amended  in  several  particulars,  it  was  passed  toward  the 
close  of  the  session.    It  required  the  challenging  of  any  per 
son  offering  to  vote  at  any  election  whenever  it  should  ap 
pear  to  the  judges  that  the  person  had  a  distinct  and  visible 
xture  of  African  blood.     Anyone  so  challenged  must 
sr  under  oath  as  to  his  age,  place  of  birth,  whether 
t  his  parents  were  married  and  if  either  of  them  had  a 
:t  and  visible  admixture  of  African  blood,  whether 
he  was  classified  as  a  colored  person  in  his  commu- 
ind  if  his  children  attended  the  schools  for  colored 

icrson,  History  of  Reconstruction,  p.  380.  *Ibid.,  p.  417. 

ence,  Gallia,  Meigs  and  Vinton  counties. 
e  Journal,  1868,  App.,  p.  16. 


252  OHIO  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [388 

or  white  children,  and  must  produce  two  reliable  witnesses 
to  swear  to  the  truth  of  his  statements.  If  the  questions 
were  all  answered  satisfactorily,  the  person  was  to  swear 
that  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  he  was  a  white  person, 
thereupon  his  vote  was  to  be  taken,  and  the  clause  "  chal 
lenged  on  the  ground  of  visible  admixture  of  African  blood" 
entered  on  the  poll  book  opposite  his  name.  Safeguards 
were  provided  for  the  proper  enforcement  of  the  act  by  pre 
scribing  heavy  penalties  for  false  swearing,  for  receiving 
any  illegal  vote  and  for  improper  challenging.  Finally,  the 
act  was  to  be  given  in  special  charge  to  the  grand  jury  at 
each  term  of  the  court  of  common  pleas.1 

A  supplementary  act  passed  the  next  day  in  amendment 
of  the  general  election  law  provided  penalties  against  judges 
for  refusing  to  receive  a  ballot  from  any  person  known  to 
have  the  qualifications  of  an  elector,  but  exempting  from  its 
provisions  judges  who  refused  to  receive  the  votes  of  per 
sons  having  a  visible  admixture  of  African  blood  and  free 
ing  them  from  any  liability  for  damages  by  reason  of  such 
rejection.2 

The  radical  advocates  of  negro  suffrage  at  once  began 
a  campaign  of  opposition  to  these  measures.  In  Summit 
county,  the  judge  in  charging  the  jury  held  that  the  laws 
were  unconstitutional  and  not  to  be  regarded.  This  led  to 
the  adoption  of  a  resolution  by  the  House  that  the  judiciary 
committee  should  inquire  into  the  facts  and  report  at  an 
early  date  whether  the  judge  should  not  be  impeached  for 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.3  In  Greene  county  a  case 
was  promptly  brought  against  the  election  judges  for  refus 
ing  to  receive  the  vote  of  a  mulatto  at  a  local  election.  It 
went  up  to  the  Supreme  Court,  which  was  still  controlled 

1  Laws  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixv,  p.  97.  *  Ibid.,  p.  100. 

3  House  Journal,  1868,  pp.  981  and  1050. 


389]  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  IN  OHIO  253 

by  the  friends  of  negro  suffrage,  and  both  acts  were  declared 
unconstitutional.1  The  matter  was  thus  reduced  to  the  same 
situation  in  which  it  was  placed  in  1860,  when  the  first 
"  Visible  Admixture  law  "  was  held  to  be  unconstitutional. 
In  addition  to  dealing  with  the  subject  of  negro  suffrage, 
this  legislature,  at  its  first  session,  had  the  privilege  of 
selecting  a  United  States  Senator  to  succeed  Wade.  A 
spirited  contest  for  the  place  began  immediately  after  the 
election  of  1867  between  Vallandigham  and  Thurman.  Ac 
cording  to  the  pre-convention  agreement,  it  rightfully  be 
longed  to  the  former,  but  the  latter's  friends  held  that  his 
brilliant  canvass  against  Hayes  and  the  negro-suffrage 
amendment  entitled  him  to  some  recompense.  Both  candi 
dates  urged  their  claims  in  speeches  throughout  the  state, 
and  the  contest  was  not  ended  until  January  I3th  when  in 
a  Democratic  caucus  Thurman  received  fifty-one  votes  to 
his  opponent's  twenty-four.  Vallandigham  worked  almost 
single-handed  with  the  Democratic  members  of  the  legisla 
ture  during  the  days  preceding  the  caucus ;  he  was  deserted, 
however,  not  only  by  many  of  his  hitherto  strong  sup 
porters,  but  also  by  several  of  those  who  had  actually 
pledged  themselves  to  him  during  the  campaign.  Jealousy 
of  the  leaders  and  the  fear  lest,  should  he  be  chosen,  he 
would  not  be  admitted  by  the  Senate,  seemed  to  be  the  prin- 
-:"il  reasons  for  this  desertion.  To  Vallandigham,  the 
>at  meant  the  blasting  of  his  highest  hopes — a  seat  in 
United  States  Senate — and  caused  his  temporary  retire- 
t  from  politics. 

the  next  session  when  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was 
ved,  a  resolution  was  passed,  May  4th,  rejecting  it.2 
governor  delayed  sending  this  to  the  Secretary  of  State 

lins  vs.  Monroe,  17  Ohio  State  Reports,  p.  665. 
>s  of  Ohio,  vol.  Ixvi,  p.  424. 


254  OHI°  POLITICS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR         [390 

until  the  latter  part  of  August,  and  during  the  summer  Ohio 
was  listed  as  one  of  the  states  which  had  not  acted  on  the 
Amendment.  In  the  fall  of  1869,  fusion  tickets  were  put 
in  the  field  by  the  Democrats  and  conservatives  of  the  op 
posite  party  in  many  of  the  counties  on  a  platform  of  re 
form  in  local  affairs.  In  Hamilton  county  such  a  fusion 
ticket  was  nominated  not  only  for  the  local  offices  but  also 
for  the  legislature ;  it  was  understood  by  the  Democrats  that 
the  conservatives  would  stand  with  them  in  matters  coming 
before  the  two  houses.  This  ticket  was  successful,  and  the 
members  so  elected,  held  the  balance  of  power  in  the  legisla 
ture.  On  a  resolution  to  ratify  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
the  conservatives  voted  for  it,  thus  securing  its  adoption  by 
a  majority  of  one  vote  in  each  House.  By  this  narrow  mar 
gin  Ohio,  after  a  contest  lasting  over  five  years,  gave  her 
voice  for  negro  suffrage.  In  the  new  Constitution  drafted 
by  the  constitutional  convention  of  1873,  the  word  "white" 
was  omitted  from  the  article  prescribing  the  qualifications 
for  the  elective  franchise,  but  as  this  document  was  not  ac 
cepted  by  the  people,  the  word  still1  remains  in  the  funda 
mental  law,  though  its  effect  was  rendered  void  by  the  Fif 
teenth  Amendment. 

1  Written  in  1911. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

THE  political  history  of  Ohio  during-  the  Civil  War 
period  has  not  received  a  satisfactory  treatment  in  any  of 
the  secondary  works  on  the  history  of  the  state.  White- 
law  Reid,  Ohio  in  the  War  (Cincinnati,  1868),  contains  a 
brief  account  covering  the  years  1860  to  1865.  Rufus 
King,  Ohio  (Boston,  1903),  gives  one  chapter  to  the  mili 
tary  and  political  events  of  the  period.  Most  of  the  other 
histories  deal  exclusively  with  the  military  side.  S.  S.  Cox, 
Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation  (Providence,  1885), 
gives  the  attitude  of  the  Democrats  on  many  questions  of  the 
times.  James  Ford  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States 
(New  York,  1893  to  1906),  treats  the  political  affairs  of 
the  state  which  came  prominently  into  national  politics. 

A  critical  bibliography  of  all  material  printed  in  book 
or  pamphlet  form  has  been  compiled  by  Daniel  T.  Ryan 
under  the  title,  The  Civil  War  Literature  of  Ohio  (Cleve 
land,  1911).  This  work  will  be  an  invaluable  aid  to  future 
students  of  the  period.  A  list  of  Ohio  newspapers  and 
periodicals  which  have  been  preserved  in  the  various  libra 
ries  of  the  state  and  elsewhere  has  been  compiled  by  C.  B. 
Galbreath,  Librarian  of  the  Ohio  State  Library  (Colum 
bus.  TOO?). 

are  several  unpublished  collections  of  letters  in  the 

of   Congress,   notably  the   papers   o<f    Salmon    P. 

Andrew  Johnson  and  Governor  William  Allen,  which 

mch  information  on  Ohio  politics.     In  addition  to 

i  se  of  these,  the  author  has  been  able  to1  examine 

;  :'ivate  collections,   including  that   of  ex-President 

I 

255 


VITA 

GEORGE  HENRY  PORTER  was  born  at  Port  Washington, 
Ohio,  October  8,  1878.  He  was  graduated  from  the  New 
Philadelphia,  Ohio,  high  school  in  1895  an(l  from  the  Ohio 
State  University  in  1901.  He  attended  the  University  of 
Chicago  during  the  summer  quarters  of  1904-5-6.  From 
1907  to  1910  he  was  a  graduate  student  at  Columbia  Uni 
versity,  where  he  attended  courses  given  by  Professors 
Burgess,  Dunning,  Osgood,  Shepherd  and  Goodnow.  Dur 
ing  the  year  1908-1909  he  held  a  University  Fellowship  in 
American  History. 

257 


UNIVERSITY 


VSy&Ft 

^  8/953 


L|#»%68  7 


/5M 

233027 


YC  09176 


t*J. 


